In an opinion piece published on ifa, Neil Macdonald responded to feedback from a prior article he wrote in November in which he said advisers will exit the industry in droves if the current requirement for existing advisers with no degree to have an approved qualification by 1 January 2026 is not addressed.
Mr Macdonald said if the requirement is not changed, the next exodus “will make the current stream of exits look like a trickle in percentage terms”.
“We received a lot of messages from older advisers, many of whom thanked us for raising the issue but we also received a lot of comments from other advisers saying that no adviser should be given a free pass around tertiary education, regardless of age or experience,” Mr Macdonald wrote in the latest piece.
“We happen to agree.”
Mr Macdonald backed government’s recently announced Education Standards for Financial Advisers policy paper that proposed a pathway that streamlines the minimum education requirements and recognises on-the-job experience for individuals with 10 or more years of full-time experience.
“So, to be very clear, we do not support giving concessions to people who have not bothered undertaking appropriate ongoing education. What we do support is allowing older advisers who have passed the FASEA exam, who continue to complete CPD, who have demonstrated that they are highly competent and experienced over many years, and who are highly valued by their clients, to continue doing what they are doing beyond 2026, without having to get a new degree,” he wrote.
“But we also believe a line needs to be drawn in the sand somewhere. There needs to be a firm date after which older advisers without these qualifications can no longer practise. Allowing them, or anyone else, to continue to practise indefinitely runs counter to professionalism.”
Read the full piece here.
Well I think back on study I done 15 years ago (in another field) and can hand on heart say, that although that qualification could still be used to secure a job in that industry, I wouldn’t have a clue what I’m doing today. What advisers actually provide advice on changes all the time. A 10 year old degree in our industry would be next to useless for the most part, without copious amounts of time getting up to date on all the legislative changes.
It strikes me as strange they want professionalism to be a potentially irrelevant qualification, versus being experienced and up to date. I’d take experience over an old qualification any day. These qualifications some a pressing so hard for, would now be irrelevant for many who have them and without experience these people would be no better advisers than the average crypto pusher.
Ability and merit should rule, not a useless piece of paper. What the FASEA exam should have been, was an exam to test an advisers ability to give sound advice. 10 years+ experience trumps a degree in financial planning imo. However I’m interested in best client outcomes, not political grandstanding.
Does the fact that university or equivalent study teaches nothing practical to actually help one know how to be an effective, competent, ethical Adviser OR to actually be one not enter this debate at all? The number of papers I have from various institutions over the decades I’ve been in practice and not one single one of them was an actual learning experience I’d care anyone else to have and as a consumer also I’d not find any value in my Adviser having such pieces of paper or the “knowledge” that comes with them either. If they were teaching something useful I’d fully agree with the educational requirements, as Doctors learn about the human body, chemistry, etc and how to slice and dice a body when necessary. When it comes to finance and particularly financial services and even accounting though, they teach nothing but outdated, unuseful theory that doesn’t help the profession or clients. Experience and the knowledge that comes with it does. That’s why one would be better off studying an apprenticeship under experienced Advisers, Stockbrokers, Bankers and the-like just as a Carpenter or Electrician does.
Wasn’t the “firm date” set at 1 Jan 2026? Is the issue that this date did not give people sufficient time to transition to the new rules? Should this date be postponed and it should be clearly stated that this is the final firm date?
The line in the sand ? …..that was what 2026 is !!! If you mean ‘move the line in the sand ‘ – the. Please say so.
[b]Experienced but not Degree Qualified[/b]
I study and read to keep updated and have absolutely no problem with studying to improve my skills, knowledge and to add value to what I can offer my clients, but I do not want to study again just to get another piece of paper.
I want extensive study present or past to be recognised regardless of its classification. I should be judged on my ability to do the job, not the year I did my study if I have adequately ensured that I have maintained the skills and have a clean compliance record.
When I started in 1985, I was in the midst of an Accounting Degree which I ceased in order to do the 2 year LUA Advanced Financial Planning Course that covered Investment, Savings, Superannuation, Retirement Planning, Insurance, Taxation, Estate Planning and Centrelink and Veteran Affairs extensively.
Then it was decided a Diploma was required so I completed DFP 1 to 8 and went on to qualify as a CFP® in 1997. In addition, I have also undergone further studies to be recognised as a Superannuation Specialist, Retirement Income Specialist, SMSF Specialist, Direct Share Specialist, Debt Management Specialist, Salary Packaging Specialist, Insurance Specialist, Aged Care Specialist, Estate Planning Specialist. Furthermore, I generally complete about 200 hours a year of CPD per year to meet the needs of my clients and my requirements as a Certified Financial Planner, SMSF Specialist Advisor and a Tax (financial) adviser.
I have taken the time to not only do 1-8 twice and to get all of these specialist accreditations to set me above the pack but have also spent numerous hours ensuring that my business is recognised as a CERTIFIED QUALITY ADVICE PRACTICE awarded to the top 5% of Advisers and FPA PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE.
Over the years I have willingly added numerous accreditations’ to my name to let my clients know that I stand well above the average Adviser but as I head into the twilight years of my career and see out the last 13 years to mark 50 years as a holistic Financial Planner I would be happy to have to put “Experienced but not Degree Qualified” and let anyone who believes a Degree is all that matters be able to say oh you shouldn’t see her. “She is not Degree Qualified”. This will give all those that complete the degree an edge like I thought that the tens of thousands of hours that I put into completing studies and accreditations over 37 years was going to give me.
For over 35 years I have guided clients to achieve their financial goals through life, legislative and economic changes. I am a proud winner of a National FPA Value of Advice Award, a member of the US MDRT Top of the Table and I am passionate about delivering excellent advice and service that simplifies our clients lives and enables them to live without financial worry.
I employee a team of 20 to help me, help my clients, all who I have either assisted to learn Financial Planning from scratch or to take their skills to a superior level and all who would provide written testimony that workplace experience and training was of greater value than formal learnings. I am currently supervising a new adviser whilst they undertake a professional year. I help accountants and solicitors work out solutions for complicated clients.
If FASEA followed the Govt mandate and looked at all past education, CPD, etc then this shouldn’t have been an issue.
Obviously, I could just retire with my clients but who will look after them and lead my team. That is not what I want, nor what my team want or what my clients want. If clients still want to see me because of the excellent financial position I have put them or their family in after being informed that I am Experienced but not Degree Qualified, shouldn’t they have a right. Isn’t ‘freedom of choice’ or ‘a fair go’ part of our Australian values.
And if they don’t properly judge the ability to do the job, not the time the formal study was done if the Adviser has adequately ensured that they maintained the skills, I truly hope that those who have cared little about what the founders of Financial Planning have done to ensure that there are some very good examples of what a difference quality financial planning makes to the lives of their clients; live long enough to regret ignorant words like “if the industry evolves, and further study is required (whether beneficial or just mandated by law) ill just get on with it and do it as I already have once”.
If I had only repeated my studies once I would have no qualms either, but as an Adviser who wanted to be recognised as leading, I have repeated my studies numerous times. It is now time for my weekends to be spent with family, friends and on ensuring I maintain my health.
Leanne Bull CFP®
Leanne, it is painful for us all to do more study but we have more than enough time to complete it. I have a bachelor and a Masters degree, CA quals , FP quals but still had to do more study to get the degree requirements out of the way. It is a really clunky process but by watering it down more – we are not helping to raise the credibility of the ‘profession’. Am sure your understand. Bob
How many pieces of paper and letters after your name have helped you or your clients add value I wonder.
I always see these same pointless replies. “Well I done it so everyone should have to do it”. OR I want professionalism in my industry, and somehow have been convinced by others with the qualifications or are placed to profit from them that it somehow will make this all professional.
Clearly completing the ethics course for many failed to impart knowledge or understanding, because they clearly still don’t understand bias.
It will be interesting to see what the FPA and AFA position is on the 10 year exemption.
The general vibe I am getting is much the same as implied by Neil. Most advisers are not in favour of a pure experience based exemption from education requirements. However most advisers are in favour of greater recognition of prior education from a broader and older range of courses, and from accredited CPD. (Essentially to fix the overly restrictive RPL rules laid down by the incompetent and conflict riddled FASEA).
I would love to see a coordinated response from all the associations to try and tilt ALP and LNP policy changes more in this direction.
Even a Monkey can watch webinars and guess enough multiple choice tests to hit the 40hours CPD per year. Give a 10 year old with technology skills and enough of an incentive a crack without any financial planning industry experience a go at “completing” the 40 hours CPD per year and I wouldn’t be surprised if they not only do it more quickly, but accurately as well.
I’m surprised that the usual doom and gloom dinosaurs haven’t commented yet with something negative about the changing requirements as part of becoming a profession. Guess they’re still on extended holidays or still trying to work out how to get the computer started up again.
10yrs as an AR + Graduate Certificate for those with no relevant qualification above an advanced diploma.
Cut the fat and dead weight from the industry. Thin the heard from the glorified sales people purporting to be professionals just because they fallen into an authorised rep position in whatever semi dodgy telemarketing company it is they came from. When this happens, it will create room for the next generation and likely the incentives that will make financial planning an attractive profession.
CPD teaches even less than the universities do. The fact is, you trust an electrician who studied an apprenticeship and don’t ask to see his papers or CPD. Why wouldn’t you trust someone who’s been practicing and honing their skills in finance for 20-30 years? Or are you claiming your 5 seconds in the industry with a few pieces of paper has made you the top of your profession?
A line has been drawn in the sand 2026….basically it was one unit a year!
everyone has been given a date, an extended date at that – 1st Jan 2026
lobbying for further leniency is embarrassing to those lobbying & the profession as a whole
it’s simple – step up by 1st Jan 2026 or step out
Example: Age 63, has a degree (B.Bus), which is not considered sufficiently relevant. Been in the industry for 40+ years, advising 25 years, passed FASEA exam, accepted for TPB, want to continue practicing, educating, learning. At the top of his game. Need to do another half an FP degree? Asking for a friend.
Your “friend” doesn’t deserve an exemption based on their experience alone. No-one does.
But they shouldn’t be forced to do an FP degree if they have completed a B.Bus, RG146, and about 1,000 hours of accredited CPD. Your “friend” is perfectly qualified under the spirit of the original FASEA legislation. Just not under the bastardised rules imposed by the conflicted FASEA Board.
Lots of pro education advisers are supporting the “10 year experience” exemption, because they have been unfairly denied sufficient recognition for their own education. Education recognition is the real issue that needs to be fixed.
1st Jan 2026 is the line – that’s it, step up or step out. It’s embarrassing to the profession that some still seek to circumvent this already, extended date
So Neil is saying that there is no benefit in a 55 year old with 10 years experience getting a degree but there is some benefit in a 28 year old with 10 years experience getting a degree. There was a set date and it was 1/1/2024 and then 1/1/2026. I’m suspecting his due date is just after he intends to retire.
The time is now to turn industry into profession. Long overdue and this isn’t new news. Otherwise we all go broke due to costs of advice. Experience and CPD still doesn’t have the academic foundation to be recognised as a Professional. That’s the facts. Yes a lot of good, ethical and trustworthy advisers are being forced out, but if you wish to stay, then do the hard work and study like all other professionals do. Still can’t believe this discussion has appeared again.
I still can’t believe some people clearly can’t see the BS for what it is.
Would you prefer a surgeon with 5 degrees under his belt to perform his first heart surgery on you, or one with the previously required lower education standards and 10 years of heart surgery experience?
Talk about the pendulum swinging back too far. First we need a degree regardless of the number of years of CPD undertaken. Now, we only need pass FASEA, the Ethics unit and keep our noses clean for four more years. While, personally, I’m happy I can keep practising without getting an irrelevant qualification, this “about face” has seriously undermined years of efforts to raise professional standards within the industry. #findthemiddleground
Totally agree Wayne, we need to find the middle ground.
In my view the middle ground is broader recognition of prior education than that allowed by FASEA.
This is just putting lipstick on a pig. To avoid further angering those of us who have already completed the revised training by re-explaining, using longer sentences, that they don’t think older adviser should have to do the training. They are sprouting the same outcome – older advisers shouldn’t have to do training – why? Do they have mystical powers of compliance over us “younger advisers”.
“we do not support giving concessions to people who have not bothered undertaking appropriate ongoing education. What we do support is allowing older advisers who have passed the FASEA exam, who continue to complete CPD, who have demonstrated that they are highly competent and experienced over many years, and who are highly valued by their clients, to continue doing what they are doing beyond 2026, without having to get a new degree”.
I’ve been in financial services over 25 years and I have still completed the training. Either complete the new training requirements or leave the industry so we can become a profession and avoid another royal commission.
The issue I have with this proposal, is that I know a number of advisers who have a ‘clean record’ when they have been booted by multiple licensees over time – some of which the Advisers Association would be very aware of… AMP, AXA, Charter etc. These advisers who were kicked out were never repremanded nor reported to ASIC, so they continue on. I hope that the education barriers in place help move these type of ‘advisers’ on
Many older advisers have qualifications and accreditations and should be acknowledged despite the changes in the industry. A lot of the work is around client service and referral when required and older advisers get this.