Connect and engage
Everyone has an opinion, and some people feel compelled to speak out. Share your views, opinions and insights with financial advisers accross Australia today. If you'd like to write a blog or to submit a letter to the editor please contact the editorial team on [email protected] or call 02 9922 3300.
Exactly. This is the issue we should be talking about. Instead FASEA has wheeled out a trojan horse to distract us all, and this is the mob who will be writing our compulsory code of ethics!
The guy is a Shonk, no argument but to make the statement that you have here is Defamatory, Unfounded, Uninformed and Totally Unfair. Maybe you got your fingers burnt from bad advice, if you did I'm sorry to hear that, but YOU CANNOT make the statement that EVERY SINGLE PLANNER AND EVERY SINGLE PRACTICE has done this. Talking about liars I think your que should include you
There is still an issue that the only degrees recognised are degrees specific to financial planning which did not exist 20 years ago. Then you did a degree in business or commerce, subsequent Diploma in Financial Planning and then earned experience and CPD for the next twenty years - that is still not good enough according to the Fasea - you are not as qualified as a grad from last year who did a B.Bus FP with no experience
If the 10 year rule is adopted then I assume we will see Deen Sanders and all the senior lawyers at ASIC re-enrolling in university, not to mention all the doctors, engineers, teachers, nurses, and lawyers in the country. Isn't that why we have CPD?
Red herring? Something a kin to a 3 year responsibility period under LIF. Interesting suck everyone in once again to focus on one aspect of the deal and get away with the proposed agenda. Years of service has to be on the agenda as the only true measure of qualification is experience. Don’t continue to be fooled or there will be no profession to quality for. When will people wake up?
The treatment of broad finance related degrees remain. No mention of those who went out and did degrees at a time prior to when financial plannning degrees were not available
that's just what we need "a political game of statement and misstatement " can we have some bloody grown ups in this mess
A red herring that the FPA created via their conflicted interactions with FASEA.
Ben, if the intent and the document are not congruent, you are right, the document needs to be amended. That said, lets just get it done, tick it off and all go back to work.
FASEA's real work as the professional body is to remove those not qualified to give advice e.g direct insurers, roll over super call centres, etc, etc...
After attending the SMSF conference last week, I moved on with the understanding that the ten year issue is in reference to the possibility of RPL for individuals wanting the utilise prior learning to advance new study requirements. This I believe is specifically was where the ten year grey rule originated, and now has flowed across into their reference on degrees older than ten years are not good enough. I think this will likely turn out to be incorrect. But everyone one of us has differing circumstances. I have made several investigations and a lot is going on behind the scenes. My degree completed with RMIT in FP was completed in 2005. While I'm concerned it was completed more than ten years ago, I have been reassured that it will be fine. But of course no guarantees and FASEA are going to bring clarification out on this within the next two months we were told last week by Deen Sanders the fasea ceo
Regardless "your IP premium is tax deductable" is tax advise........and careful, I'm a risky and take what I do very seriously.
Great for recruitment at Westpac / BT. You would think twice before joining this organisation. They also review up to 20 files when you resign and do everything that they can to find ‘compliance issues’ and fail your exit audit in an attempt to tarnish your name in the industry and make future employment difficult.
If I had provided that half baked paper as an assignment I would have failed and be told to pay another $2,000 to try again.
This is complete bull shit. It is there on page 5, point B. If FASEA has stuffed up, they should amend the document and issue a press release. How can we go into a consultation period with FASEA denying the contents of their own document.
Every single financial planner has done this BAR NONE. You have all charged a client fees who shouldn’t of been charged. You have all signed up clients with ongoing fees who you knew only warranted a single meeting. Don’t deny it, EVERY SINGLE PLANNER AND EVERY SINGLE PRACTICE has done this. Que the liars in denial.
well they are westpac bankers
A slap on the wrist and then business as usual. I'm surprised a high quality establishment like Yorkway Partners got into bed with this lot.
Probably an old risky
There is no category of person who is "considered registered". Also there is no rule of "up to 20" for a TFA to oversee within an AFSL. Who is your AFSL and PDM?
please pull your head in natard