Speaking to ifa, Grad Mentor founder Alisdair Barr said the implementation of the degree requirement pathway outlined yesterday by FASEA was “fundamentally the right thing” to do, but cautioned it may negatively impact the inflows of new entrants to the industry.
“It’s great to put these minimum standards out, it’s great to put the core competencies out – that’s excellent and should be done and there are no arguments there from me,” he said.
“But what do we do to make sure the industry has enough new entrants excited about going and studying and coming into the profession to sustain its future?”
Mr Barr noted that the demand for advice in Australia is growing, and the pool of existing advisers is shrinking due to natural attrition, increased regulatory requirements, and new technologies forcing some out of the industry.
“I’m worried that we don’t have enough people coming through the pipeline in whatever is going to be laid down as a minimum requirement to feed the profession moving forward,” he said.
“Constantly raising the bar and making it more specific to the industry are absolutely good things to do, but drawing a line in the sand and then finding out we don’t have enough people that can meet that standard – that could really put us back a few steps in terms of growth.”
Mr Barr’s sentiments were echoed by Spark Careers director Adrian Patty, who said the implementation of an effective bridging policy to support those currently studying can meet the required standards without undue stress.
“I think the challenge will be for people that don’t yet know that they want to be an adviser,” he said.
“It’ll be interesting to see what the bridging piece will be, to get someone who’s got a bachelor’s already but maybe doesn’t meet the requirements for specific subjects, so that’s probably going to be the challenge because a lot of people that will be entering the industry are people that won’t be studying a degree that necessarily matches up with that specific content.”
I’d like to give a fresh perspective and bit of a different dimension here. Look at the qualifications that already exist here and the new ones mooted. I’d like to suggest that all this talk and fuss about lowering commissions, clawbacks, bad advisers churning and new qualifications for advisers is ALL just a RED HERRING. Bear with me and read on . . .
.
Ok, let’s say for now these are all good and required – all the adviser qualifications being mooted. These are the qualifications that so-called smart people believe an adviser needs to sit with one person and give important advice on that persons finances and insurance. OK, for this argument, fair enough. NOW, what qualifications (and who enforces them) do the politicians have to run this country or, specifically, their appointed portfolios? Come on now, I MEAN IT! PLEASE, tell me – who enforces this at point of law – just like they are enforcing OUR qualifications?! WELL?!
.
As an adviser I give important financial advice to one Australian at a time. POLITICIANS, on the other hand, make far reaching sweeping changes to industry codes, laws and academia that affect millions of Australians in one fell swoop. SURELY these politicians should be held to even HIGHER account than we are? A worong decision made by them, due to not being properly ‘qualified’ in a particular area can be catastrophic for more than simply the ‘one’ person I may give advice to on a topic.
.
They say all that’s required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing. WELL?!! This government full of unqualified leeches on the public purse had demonized and adversely legislated against our industry for decades as their fave whipping boy. They, and their ASIC doppelganger has used us as a convenient ‘agenda-helper’ to justify themselves in the electorates eye to justify their free paycheck each Friday from the taxpayer and so they don’t get voted out next term. This is all we mean to these freeloaders.
.
I’m calling for a public register of every legislator and their qualifications to make specific decisions, not only on OUR industry but Australia wide. There has to be accountability and justification and there has to be transparency in the people and their right/qualification to make far reaching, sometimes irreversible, changes to industry and the Aussie economy. In other words : LETS GET QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO RUN OUR PRECIOUS COUNTRY FOR ONCE!
We have been seeing the impact of the new Professional Education Standards, which I wholeheartedly agree with, on DFP course enquiries for about the last 12 months. Interest has declined and levelled out only in recent months. The uncertainty of any published framework or rules around what will actually be required post January 2019, especially in relation to what Degrees will be considered appropriate and those that won’t, has deterred people from considering Financial Planning as a career pathway until (as i commonly hear people say) “it’s all sorted out”.
I agree with these comments entirely. A full FP undergraduate degree is way over the top for those who already have a degree. A Grad Dip or Masters is more appropriate, which can be completed in a couple of years part-time. I hope FASEA don’t stuff this up
It’s not education standards that are deterring new entrants. It is the negative perceptions generated by lies and misrepresentation from union funds, Fairfax/ABC, and the outgoing ASIC chairman.
Wrong. The bar should be set high, and if that shrinks the talent pool, so be it. Underqualified, unskilled participants are the bane of any profession, advising or otherwise.
I agree with you whole heatedly but that’s Pretty Harsh. A lot of students waking up today studying a Bachelor of Finance, a Bachelor of Commerce, a Bachelor of Business just realised that their degree won’t get them a job interview, wouldn’t agree with you at all Geoffrey.
That’s just silly. If those students wanted to be an Accountant they would still have to do CPA or CA programs after their degree or if they want to get into Finance then go get Grad Dip Applied Finance, CFA or CIMA after your degree and so on through the professions…