Adrian Raftery took to LinkedIn last week to bash advisers who say they cannot afford to pay for a university degree following the government’s new professional standards.
Earlier this year, the Corporations Amendment (Professional Standards of Financial Advisers) Bill 2016 passed Parliament, making it mandatory for both new and existing advisers to reach a degree-equivalent status.
Mr Raftery said the “latest excuse from the financial planning fraternity” as to why they will not do a university degree is because they cannot afford it.
“Wow! Is this the same fraternity that have made lifestyles out of devising financial plans to mums and dads to help save for their kid’s education?” he said.
“Can’t devise a savings plan for yourselves? Oh this is laughable.”
Mr Raftery also criticised those looking for a “cheap degree”.
“And then they say that they are going to go to lowest level university to get their degree because it is the cheapest! Oh please!” he said.
“Try telling Mr and Mrs Smith that you are doing a basic savings plan and recommending that little Jimmy goes to ZZZ Institute of Poo because all degrees are the same.”
Infocus Wealth Management managing director and chief executive Rod Bristow responded to the LinkedIn post, saying “an industry in transition to a profession will always have its ‘outliers’ who struggle with the change process”.
“Change in itself is becoming more and more complex – just ask governments around the world who are grappling with ways to move constituents toward unpopular policy positions,” he said.
“The advice industry is no different in regard to change. My view is it’s important to focus on the majority within the industry who genuinely believe the industry needs to change and evolve; and who are making the hard decisions and leading by example to ensure this happens within their organisations.
“This sort of approach might not get the headlines, but in the long-term will bear fruit through sustainable businesses that help Australians from all walks of life meet their goals.”
In a separate statement on Twitter, Mr Raftery called on parents to recommend financial planning as a career choice for their children.
“The industry is currently unergoing a huge makeover with education standards and I expect that between 5,000 to 8,000 advisers will either retire or move to another field by 2023,” he said.
“Unlike some other disciplines, there are huge opportunities to get a job in financal planning after the completion of their degree (B.Commerce at Deakin for example). To all my financial adviser LinkedIn friends, please provide support/endorsement of this opportunity for the young ones in the future.”
Ah, what then do you call describing another person’s concerns as ‘laughable’ and having the same individual gloating about a colleague’s use of ‘nice click bait’.
The GFC was caused by people on Wall St who all held an MBA, because that is the only way you get a gig with Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley . Watch out what you wish for
As a risk only adviser when I completed the advanced financial planning I can honestly say I learnt nothing that helped me in my own field. I may have learnt more about SMSF’s or investments but this is irrelevant to my chosen business model.
I understand that to advise on complex investing, super or tax you should be appropriately qualified but this is where the legislation falls short on specialisation or experience.
A bit like a 40 year maths teacher being told that to continue to teach maths they now have to complete a degree in Chemistry there has to be some relevance to this that will actually benefit the customer and the adviser.
In a world where many people are questioning the size of student debts and their actual job prospects after attaining degree or higher educations again i find it interesting that the government and our “industry” run to these magic bullet type solutions.
I should begin by congratulating Adrian Rafferty on his elevation to Professor from Assoc Professor.
I think that his comments on professionalism are compelling and I am gratified and astounded that this can be achieved in a course that is offered by distance education.
I feel that it augurs well for extending such a brilliant model to all courses at all universities thus doing away with the need for campuses and face-to-face contact.
We often hear of the need for higher education to stem the tide of abuse by non-professionals who ultimately cause pain and suffering to the duped.
Whilst we are mandating University training for all Financial Planners I think that this should be extended to Family studies on the basis that the recent Manchester bomber and the Lindt Café murderer were badly parented.
I think a degree course should be a pre-condition to coitus and certainly child bearing. This would within a generation empty our prisons and lead to a much improved society.
Might I suggest that we put the degree trained former superior court judge Marcus Einfeld in charge of developing a suitable curriculum.
As a prelude to this we ought to legislate against boys being named Leon as Academic research has indicated that Leon is 1st most criminal name in Australia, with 3193 criminals per 100,000 people with that name.
sarcasm, the lowest form of wit…
. . . . and still, none of these academics – or many advisers for that matter – want to talk about a separate licence or qualification for pure risk advisers. Totally different skill set but never discussed.
I ant to discuss it Brian
My “professional body” apparently does not
What to do?
Do you really want an adviser fresh out of a Uni degree with absolutely no experience to give advice to a retiree with a Million Dollars? This is what the government wants . My son did first year at Deakin Uni bachelor of Economics and it was only 2 days per week for a full time degree !! plus $10k HECs debt . Deakin ,get realistic and get your Lecturers and tutors working not bludging for these students. My daughter is doing primary school teaching at ACU and attends 30 hours a week .Keep pumping out useless degrees instead of an internship with an experienced planner . ( it would be cheaper and better) .Oh also the CFP designation , highest qualification in the world promoted by the FPA day 1, not recognised now in Australia DAY 2.
Agree that internships are the way to go. At Deakin we call them Work Integrated Learning (WIL) programs – we want to make internships mandatory but don’t have enough of firms to put their hand up to offer them.
The CFP designation is completely worthless in my opinion, when there is no way for the general public (or anyone outside the FPA really) to know whether they actually put in the learning or merely just collected enough tokens from their cereal box
This. I’m recently completed a Masters in FP (level 8 education) and now have the start the “highest designation” the CFP which is a level 7 education
A masters in Australia is AQF9 – and CFP is recognised at that level for exemptions/RPL purposes.
Most consumers are not aware that there are two very different types of CFP. But ASIC certainly is. Unfortunately the FPA refuses to provide any means of identifying whether a CFP holder is real or grandfathered, so ASIC lumps all CFPs together in the lowest common denominator of grandfathered CFPs. That’s why real CFPs will not get an exemption from the exam, even though they have successfully completed a much more comprehensive financial planning exam. The FPA has basically shafted real CFPs, in order to protect the ability of grandfathered CFPs to masquerade under a designation they obtained through historical windfall. It makes an absolute mockery of the FPA’s rhetoric about professionalism and ethics. It is about time grandfathered CFPs were stripped of that designation until they have completed the real CFP education requirements.
My advice to young people thinking about a career as a financial planner, is to speak to some experienced advisers. There are a lot of people who comment on our profession, who really don’t understand it at all. What is the saying? ‘Those who can, do and those who can’t, teach’. Anyway, call some financial planners in your area, offer them a coffee for a 10 minute chat. We’re a pretty friendly bunch. You will learn far more speaking to successful advisers than you will ever learn from academics selling courses.
This is the same organisation that charges for an EXEMPTION from a subject i.e. they charge you to NOT do that subject.
Please explain?
vote with your feet (don’t enrol through Deakin)
Feel free to cut your nose to spite your face. Good luck!
Many thanks to Linda for giving us a free kick with my LinkedIn comments. I was merely highlighting one tye of excuse that I heard from advisers – there are 1000 others but save those for another day. I do agree with some comments that the university offering needs to be of more value. At that end, at Deakin we have tailormade a Masters degree specifically for experienced financial advisers. Feel free to have a look at our Master of Professional Practice (Financial Planning) which assesses prior knowledge gained through the “University of Life” and not merely restricted to formal studies conducted < 10 years ago. PS Linda - please contact me prior to further publications as a matter of courtesy. Nice click bait with the headline.
Deakin is just another parasite flogging courses that are not only useless but pointless to a good adviser. You are taking advantage of a planned education/compliance witch hunt that is not needed. The mafia did similar things to make money on the waterfront and other business practices. Shame on you and the FPA.
love that Stephen Catterall put his name to his post, but have a slightly different view. I started my Uni degree (Commerce & Business) back in the 2000’s and then had to stop to support my Mum financially. I always told myself I’d go back once I thought the degree would help me…..roll forward to 2017 and instead of going back to Uni to undertake a crappy degree in FP (crappy based on the content, not the perceived value of the degree) – I have instead completed DFS, ADFS and now FChFP. I will need to do something to bridge the quals gap….but I’ll be stuffed if I’m paying Deakin or any other Uni to do a worthless degree. I will ensure I lobby the new education standard setting body (think it’s FPEC) to allow ‘relevant degrees’ like Entrepreneurship or even an MBA. Leave the industry bodies (FPA, AFA et al) to set the technical bar high enough inside their designations (CFP, FChFP etc) to allow us to jump the hurdle that way… so if we do have decide to go back to Uni…then at least we can get some value.
For the record I think Mr Raftery’s comments will work against the recruitment of Advisers into Deakin courses….
We have conducted research on what we believe are ‘relevant’ degrees and its actually quite broad including nursing! I agree that there is only so much Technical 101 that can be taught but the ‘soft’ skills are actually the ‘hard’ ones to acquire. Good luck!
PS There is a certain demographic of advisers that we would like at Deakin. I won’t be upset if my comments help the filtering process along the way. Quality is always much more important to me than quantity.
^this is why degrees shouldnt be compulsory, you turn into a smug know it all with no people skills, not great for actual client relationships
So… who are you really??? you obviously work for Deakin, put your name up please?
Steve, I completely agree with your comments re Raftery, it will, in my opinion, most definitely work against Deakin.
As an adviser and a writer for a University course I question why would an adviser with 20 years of experience want to pay $700 to $1100 per subject when the underlying subjects are “introductory” in nature (e.g introduction to financial planning or introduction to investments or similar) and or simply existing white labelled introductory subjects borrowed from other courses and rebundled and resold to form an new degree. It is not a case of advisers can’t afford it, more a case that Universities are 1) broke, 2) more interested in selling existing products to Chinese students 3) providing a crap product and Universities need to lift there game.
100% Agreed.
Do a Masters which by definition would be of a more advanced curriculum. Simples.
that is the Masters course. Let me tell you how financially struggling Universities work. That’s just about every Uni in Australia, ever since a carpenter ( a trade course via Tafe) gets paid more than an Accountant it seems these days. You take the introductory tax subject from the business program. then you take the introductory law subject from the law program, and repeat the process until you’ve got a new Masters of Financial Planning and you charge the price of a small car. When no-one enrolls, you stand around and scratch your head and then you blame the lecturer for low enrolments and suggests he learn Chinese as it’s being rebadged and re sold to a Sister Uni Beijing.. That lecturer then jumps online and writes stupid posts, flinging mud on the very same audience trying to feed him.
That was my experience with the Masters I completed in 2009. A hastily assembled hybrid MBA and DFP cleverly disguised as Master of Financial Planning. But hey, they gave me the most credits for my Business degree and that was important when you’re paying $1500 a subject whilst working fulltime. I’m glad I have the qualification…but expected more than a rehash of Economics, Marketing and HR management with a few DFPs thrown in for measure.
I agree that advisers want something more than Tax 101, Super 101, Estate Planning 101, Financial Planning 101, Insurance 101. Suggest you have a look at our Master of Professional Practice (Financial Planning) if you want something to challenge you a bit more & provide a bit more relevance. http://www.deakin.edu.au/course/master-professional-practice-financial-planning Traditional financial planning degrees are more appropriate for future planners or for those who haven’t provided the full service.
what a poor mindset that the cheaper university courses are “backyard”. I agree whole heartedly that experience in the role provides valuable education, and that the standard of content and process needs to be lifted in the current university model.
Hey anonymous, (put a name to your post, get some credibility), i do agree i could have maybe used a better word than “backyard”. However, unfortunately experience does not give you a credible educational qualification, but i agree with your sentiment.
Sorry that was me, not sure why it came up an anonymous lol
The knowledge of university graduates we employ is deplorable. Begs the question what quality controls are in place at the universities who clearly have a vested interest to increase the need for formal qualifications. Educators need to be held accountable for the outcome of their courses. The best test is the knowledge gained on completion. A big FAIL from my experience.
It is well known that the Universities are also on a cash grab, and no bigger one than a change in legislation. They should also look at reducing the fee’s charged for these courses as the majority are now conducted online yet they still charge as if you were in a class with an academic teaching you.
I think universities need to consider the way these upgraded educational standards are delivered to advisers who are already time poor. I won’t mention the university, but I enrolled in the Masters to find that the idea of delivering lectures was via an unedited recording of an on-campus lecture for which the recording was two hours with a lot of irrelevant discussion. I’m all for upgrading standards but think about considering your audience when formulating it’s delivery. I’ve since withdrawn and gone with another provider who has clearly thought about this.
There are lots of options for a well rounded Masters degree, i completed mine online and while it was busy and lets face it, EVERYBODY is time poor lol, it was well worth it.
It is just part and parcel of your research process for the best Uni to take you through it.
I agree wholeheartedly with Adrian’s comments, if an adviser cannot afford or, who goes to the cheapest option’, to obtain a backyard degree, then they do not deserve to be in the industry.
TBH the education process/need should stem from the individual “wanting” to improve themselves, not purely due to legislative regulation.
Do you really want to be advised by an individual, who as in RG146 when DFP first came in, went for the easiest option (I saw this and was disgusted flagrant cheating and a lot of it originating from the licensee to get the advisers through), or from an adviser who is well rounded ethical and educated?? I know what option i would choose.
It’s difficult not to agree with Raftery. It is truly laughable to suggest that degrees are too expensive. We are more than happy to condemn our children to expensive degrees and vocational training, but not willing to do it ourselves within this industry. Those complaining may now understand what the current suite of millennial graduates are concerned about (including the awful rip off educators scamming the government HELP VET system and going out of business stranding thousand’s of students).