ifa has learnt that the experienced pathway passed both houses on Wednesday.
Minister for Financial Services Stephen Jones introduced the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 to Parliament in June, which included measures to recognise experienced financial advisers who pass the exam, have 10 years of experience, and a clean practice record.
In a speech to the House of Representatives delivered at the time, Mr Jones said: “By better recognising the experience of long-serving financial advisers, the government is providing a pathway for experienced advisers to remain in the industry”.
“This means that new entrants have the benefit of their experience through mentoring, through supervision and through employment. It also means that more Australians will have access to financial advice than would otherwise be the case.
“The government is committed to an advice industry with strong professional standards that give Australians access to high-quality financial advice and to do this by not creating unnecessary barriers to entry, ensuring financial advice remains a career of choice.”
According to the bill’s explanatory memorandum, there are 10,030 practising advisers that were first authorised in 2011 or earlier, which is the cut-off date for eligibility of the pathway.
Reacting to the bill’s passage, the executive director of the Association of Independently Owned Financial Professionals (AIOFP), Peter Johnston, said it is “a great outcome for common sense”.
“Minister Jones has performed a great feat by delivering exactly what he said they would do in late 2020 at the AIOFP Conference.
“The market forgets that the Quality of Advice Review was not delivered until December 16th, 2022, with January a non–event for business and politics, to respond on QAR and deliver this legislation in this time frame is remarkable. Hopefully the ‘naggers’ will now back off,” Mr Johnston told ifa.
While the new measures will allow more experienced financial advisers to stay in or return to the profession, the response among advisers has been split.
In its submission to the government’s exposure draft bill, the Financial Advice Association Australia (FAAA) said many advisers feel “aggrieved” by the timing of the announcement.
“A key factor influencing member sentiment about this proposal is the timing of its introduction,” the FAAA wrote.
“The transition period by which time existing planners/advisers must have completed an approved qualification, commenced more than four years ago on 1 January 2019. Many existing financial planners/advisers, whose qualifications were not recognised by FASEA, have undertaken study during this period.
“Hence, some members feel aggrieved that they have invested substantial time and money in completing qualifications that now might not be required.”
Firstly, the practice of providing financial advice is liquid, with elements regularly evolving and as such requires an ongoing education maintenance plan & a desire to meet professional standards.
It is an outlandish claim to make “that regards a person that has a degree qualification, is better enabled to provide advice” as this is a claim over “everybody” that does not hold a degree. – Just will not hold water !!
Advisers that are left are those that passed FASEA, which in itself was established as a test of ethical standards, product competency, law etc. (wasn’t it?)
Anyway, I agree, that for those with them, use them, and for those that don’t, continue to work hard and adapt as we have for all those previous years.
With new Behavioural Finance degrees, I waited until I was notified by ASIC that my old 1980s degrees were no longer relevant, BEc, MBA, MFin. I was never notified by ASIC. Were the education requirements all a ‘paper plane’ going around in circles?
Because of compliance, I complete a Masters of Law in Corporate & Financial Law 2011, but that didn’t qualify.
With a client, I talk to them and I psychologically sense what goes with them for investing, that cannot be taught, that is experience.
When Senator Jane Hume (LLB University of Melbourne) was the Financial Services Minister, she said it was not in the Government’s political agenda to integrate superannuation policy with the Age Pension system, so with family reunion of immigrants, they cannot transfer from their overseas superannuation into Australian superannuation to reduce their dependence on the Government’s Age Pension cost. Where is the Government’s common sense in that? Does this policy failure reduce accumulation of capital in Australia’s primary capital market, which invests to employ more Australians?
It’s understandable that some advisers feel aggrieved. What I don’t understand is the sentiment that other advisers are somehow to blame?
The real culprits here are FASEA. The legislation that set up FASEA was well intended and entirely appropriate. But its implementation was totally botched by the incompetence and corruption of the FASEA Board. Those are the people to whom all the negative sentiment should be directed. Not other advisers. Not Stephen Jones. Hopefully there will be some sort of inquiry in the future when the incompetent and corrupt FASEA Board members are held to account.
Good to see IFA still making sure they moderate the comments, i wonder how many haven’t been allowed like mine?
Article states: ““Hence, some members feel aggrieved that they have invested substantial time and money in completing qualifications that now might not be required.”
. . . . ya think???!
it is beyond obscene this has taken so long, with the associated stress and business dislocation caused. Steven Jones should be abjectly ASHAMED OF HIMSELF. The delay was of HIS making.
So yes, what about those [b]advisers who undertook all that expensive study[/b], especially risk advisers, to whom the study was largely irrelevant? Gutted most of them.
What about the advisers who believed they saw the writing on the wall and [b]sold their business/client base and retired early[/b] when they planned to work for much longer? Gutted most of them.
What about those advisers, older and heavily experienced, who now look at this and yearn to re-enter their chosen industry but have[b] sold their client bases and are too old to start over again.[/b]
What about the [b]advisers who suffered severe family dislocation[/b] due to financial pressure brought on by all of the ill-conceived fuss over FARCE-IA and how it was the only way forward and the holy grail. It is now known to be a major mistake and very, very ill-conceived. [b]What about those advisers who took their own lives, [/b]their families that remain? The good Lord is the only one who can truly judge all this.
Good to see that advisers are all still busy attacking each other while the government plays dangle the carrot.
In ten years no one has ever asked me about my multiple degree qualifications. Seems a waste I cannot boast about them. If advisers can leverage their quals into more clients more power to you.
Before the FAAA starts nagging too much, they are the ones who helped this legislation across the line with the FSC in the first place in 2015. For those belly aching about completing a Degree, should you not be valuing it? Instead of treating it like an unnecessary evil? Just think of the 30 Widows and 70 fatherless children left behind…..that may make you feel better…..
With over two decades of experience in a FP compliance role, I have encountered the formidable challenge of integrating businesses and their accompanying principal advisers. This endeavor often involved absorbing advisers who held basic diplomas from relatively obscure RTA’s, and merging them into companies with highly qualified and educated advisers. It is imperative to acknowledge that a stark distinction exists between experience and formal education. One can spend a considerable amount of time, even two decades, engaging in practices that may not align with industry best practices if not adequately educated. The mere tenure in a profession does not automatically confer the status of meeting professional standards.
I firmly assert that the value of education in our field cannot be overstated and can attest to the invaluable knowledge and insights gained throughout both experience and an academic journey. The establishment of educational standards within our industry was a deliberate measure aimed at discerning between seasoned advisers who remain informed and those clinging to outdated practices. It is disheartening to witness any developments that undermine the very essence of these standards.
I would like your comment framed.
Why didn’t you get a proper degree decades ago?
In response to your pejorative statement, posed as a question, I also have BSc (Hons), assuming it is “proper” enough for you?. Thanks to a long and highly rewarding career in financial services, I had the luxury of being able to take time off to study, fully expecting the Government to implement the new requirements.
I appreciate that I am extremely fortunate and feel sorry for all those hard working, decent, knowledgeable professionals who have young families, mortgages and demanding clients and simply do not have the bandwidth to do a Masters.
The reality is the consumer is more likely to receive a referral to an adviser “over the back fence” than do research into the adviser’s academic qualifications.
I feel agrieved because my 8 years isn’t enough and a part time adviser I know will self assess himself as meeting the requirement. Experience pathway should require formal sign-off.
I have 25 years’ experience, but still got stuck in over the past few years, whilst juggling business and family commitments to complete the Graduate Diploma of Financial Planning earlier this year. I have no issues with the experience pathway passing, as it does not impact me or my practice either way, but I would argue that it is too big a risk to simply rest on this passing, as who knows what a future Government may overturn or change…….
2 x Masters (1 in Applied Finance, 1 in Leadership) neither of which, due to being more than 30 years old, are recognised approved degrees; DipFP, CFP; 38 years in profession, never a complaint; Director of AFSL – never an issue; had audits, passed; done all CPD; had CPD audit, passed; passed FASEA first go; done all relevant education for specialised areas of advice (direct equities, SMSF, mortgage, real estate, taxation etc); member (>30 years) of FPA & AFA.
AND YET without the ‘experience pathway’ I would have been forced (at 63 years of age) to go and do YET ANOTHER degree.
How is the experience pathway not a reasonable outcome for someone such as myself? Does anyone care to discuss my apparent ‘lack’ of education? How about my dearth of practical experience and knowledge? Maybe one might want to debate my ethics (zero complaints, passed audits, did Ethics unit in MBA)?
All the while I can point to client experiences of a certain other profession wherein the ‘advice’ given is clearly not in anyone’s interest except the (in this example) accountants. Has nobody heard of any accountants being convicted of stealing from their clients? How many lawyers have been convicted of various crimes and frauds? Or perhaps we might review the medical profession and some of their ethical issues that crop up (repeatedly).
In fact, I challenge you to show me a profession that has never had an ‘ethics’ scandal by any of its practitioners.
[b]Ethics is nothing to do with education but everything to do with the individual. You are ethical or you’re not, despite your education standing. [/b]
I can show you young advisers with recent Masters in Financial Planning that would be hard pressed to understand ethics if you beat them over the head with them.
So who here would argue that my prior education and experience are suddenly ‘no longer fit for purpose’?
FARSEA was the right idea, 20 years too late and moronically hijacked by ASIC, Choice and Academics looking to flog text books and Uni courses. $$$$$$$$$$$$$
FARSEA’s extremely narrow recognition of prior learning was a fraudulent rort.
[b]Let’s never forget FARSEA’s 1st public announcement = [i]Any Degree older than 10 years counts for nothing, ALL start Uni again.[/i] [/b]
What a disgusting joke.
So according to FARSEA’s beginning point every Professionally has to redo Uni from scratch every 10 years.
I asked my doctor if his degree had an expiry date like mine. He didnt get the joke.
Spot on! In particular “You are ethical or you’re not, despite your education standing.”
How can completing teasing be a bad thing. Courses provide a minimum level of knowledge. Getting above that ‘black letter’ law requirement is obviously in everyone’s (provider and recipient)’s interests. I do not want to deal with an advisor who only seeks to hold the minimum required pass marks in courses, that is not ‘professional’, it is merely compliance. FIAAA would do well to stop a minimal compliance approach and embrace real professionalism – given recent experiences and failings this is long overdue.
reminds me of what do you call someone who was last in their medical degree? Doctor.
Sad day. The profession is a pipe dream. 10 years is no lens of reference, particularly depending on the scope of advice provided. Reality is I, and we all know many advisers who are great people, ethically sound but have no acumen or science to their craft under the hood from formal study. The band-aid was pulled off and no reason for the comrades in charge to reverse this.
Like most commentators here, I have spent money and time “formalising” my abilities with documentation which is now irrelevant, however, I am trying to be gracious and accept that it has reinforced my existing knowledge, and at least common sense has prevailed, which is a rarity whenever Govt is involved…
Hey Tony, I absolutely hear you, but I don’t think it’s ‘irrelevant’. Presuming you selected a decent provider, hopefully there would have been some new learnings (or re-learning) from the materials and interactions with trainers/students? You can also use your heightened education status to help showcase yourself against peers who have not done so. It’s true many clients don’t care what formal education you have, but there are some who do care. It might be small consolation, but if you leverage it, you may get some payoff for the time/funds you invested.
“You can also use your heightened education status to help showcase yourself against peers who have not done so.”
Seriously?
That wasn’t opinion, there are already advisers doing so.
I cannot get back my time. I would like a refund on all course fees and hours spent x $440 per hour. Ridiculous. So we aren’t a profession after all.
Having been well Degree educated and well qualified for the 24 years i’ve been an Adviser, I never cared too much about those that didnt think Advisers were professional.
If you had the degree plus more qualifications, experience and acted professionally, then our clients always saw us as professional.
It’s a personal approach and mindset as much as anything else.
Do you care if your Dr (GP) is qualified or not ? How about your dentist or solicitor ?
Are you after the Dr, Dentist or Solicitor fresh out of School?
Do you ask when your Dr, Dentist or Solicitor qualified?
Why would I ask when I know their PROFESSION demands it ? That is exactly my point.
I would much prefer a doctor who did their degree some years ago at Sydney Uni or UNSW, than one who did it yesterday at UWS or Kaplan.
But if medicine was financial planning, the doctors who trained at Sydney Uni or UNSW would not be recognised as “qualified”.
Me too.. I will mention to all my clients I have done all my exam and degree requirements.
Best news for experienced advisers , those who are saying that it’s not a profession are a bit unfair to dictate that knowing that we have all passed Fasea. What about the super funds and banks return to advice? Maybe more should be said about that than the experienced pathway. I’m sure advisers who didn’t pass fasea would probably go to super funds and give advice as education requirements are more loose.
They could compensate Advisers by offering Individual Registration as an option and remove the need to operate under an AFSL.
B.R.I.L.L.I.A.N.T.
agree
Compensation for the Advisers who left the Industry because they did not want to do a University Degree and now wouldn’t have had too?
Compensation for throwing a tanty? Come on
a bit like those who went around believing that all those that were to provide advice had to be on the path of education quals, a relevant degree ( what ever that means) only to find the labor lovies have moved the goal posts and now in an industry fund – quite magically – none of the moral imperative applies. Blind freddy could see it was a con – nothing more than a con . So we now have people in cognitive dissonance with respect to the QAR shenanigans and education standards.. No where on the planet have there been such a confusion between education and training. Most of our erstwhile virtue signaler’s would miss the point.
Yup surprising how low the ethical/integrity bar is for regulators in Australian – lower than some less developed countries
Hi FARSEA / ASIC, please refund the $2K so called Ethics course costs and the 120 hrs x $300 = $38K.
An utterly useless Ethics course that Pollies, ASIC, APRA, Bank Exec’s etc didnt have to do but really should.
Agreed – mine cost $2,500 plus all those hours doing assignments and studying…
Society won’t view financial planning as a legitimate profession if its practitioners are missing formal education. This is disgraceful policy, but at least there has already been a mass exodus of Advisers who were unwilling to do the study. Anyone who sidesteps formal education is cutting corners and their laziness compromises the integrity of the profession itself. Experience counts, but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking it’s a replacement for a university degree. We must now lobby to have the FAR register identify the uneducated Advisers aka experience pathway.
“….but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking it’s a replacement for a university degree”
Looks like the delusion has already set in?
I would take experience over the degrees being handed out in the last few years – for a fee of course?
:):):) love the fee part…
“Formal Education” is only one aspect of being in a profession. CPE is another. I have done over 70 hours CPE this year alone, and my clients are more concerned that I keep up with CPE & appropriate product recommendations, than going back to studying basics we already know. If Annual Fee Consent forms for On-going Fees were changed to One-Off Consent Forms (until the regular fee amount was changed), I would have plenty of time to waste on additional study.
I have had the good fortune of working for 55 years, many of which were in senior roles in financial institutions.
What have I learned – among other things, a good education is always preferred however there are a lot of well-educated idiots doing the jobs that folk with no formal qualifications but plenty of experience and common sense can do standing on their heads.
Just my thought and my experience.
Stop your whinging. You haven’t stopped for the last 4 years 😆
rubbish – there is no such thing as society having a point of view (you have gone for the untested assumption) – and you have not established any basis for that this so called society pays with thinking caps – clients pick your competence on other factors, perceptions of trust worthiness, reliability, demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter – not some arbitrary piece of paper – that quite frankly from an academic perspective is borderline useless when it comes to emotional intelligence. Explain to the assembled here, the basis of your commentary when the industry funds have been spending the last 20 years that I can attest to denigrating the cost of advice and the narrative we are dodgy – I think they are better factors to concentrate on.
Am I an ‘uneducated adviser’ because I don’t have a University Degree? I completed my studies to get a Diploma in Financial Planning, completed my studies to become a CFP and have 25 years working as a Financial Advisor.
Yes you are. We all know the diploma’s were an open book disgrace which a year 10 could do.
But they were practical and useful to educate and train adviser entrants.
Unlike a lot of degree rubbish that is more theory than practicality.
And I have all the degree education plus more and 24 yr experience
Um …….. yep
I could write a long response but I’d only be repeating what you have written. I like your last point – yes, advisers should identify themselves as degree qualifies with experience or just “experienced with some CPD sessions”.
its all in every advisers FSG.
There are at least 30 lazy bludgers disliking this valid comment. You lot are collectively stuffing this up for the hardworking professional advisers.
Some of the people disliking this comment have multiple high quality degrees and post grad courses they completed well before it was compulsory, and were denied recognition for them by the corrupt and incompetent FASEA.
The experience pathway is designed for experienced advisers without professional education, and experienced advisers without FASEA recognition of their professional education. It is quite incorrect to classify everyone who qualifies via the experience pathway as either “uneducated” or “lazy bludgers”.
This comment is about your own insecurity and own self perception of where you see yourself in society, rather than society’s view of Financial Planning.
Your own self perception is threatened if anyone hasn’t done what you have completed in regard to education.
You see yourself as above a certain standard and fear being grouped in amongst others that whilst they may be ethical, efficient, knowledgeable, moral, committed and professional in their approach, they will never be an equal unless they have achieved the same or greater level of education you have completed.
On that point, I wouldn’t be surprised if you also feel threatened by people who hold far higher levels of qualifications or education standards than yourself.
Agreed. If the Experience Pathway is a reality, then we now essentially have a two-tiered ‘profession’. At the very least, we should now move to formally acknowledge those advisers who were willing to do the hard yards (ie degrees). While experience matters, finishing what you started (ie a degree) demonstrates resilience, discipline, and character, so surely this should also be properly recognised.
Best news ever, it should always have been this way
Ridiculous call.
Absolutely Ridiculous. Another win for boomer advisers that are arguably the source for half this industries issues outside the institutions.
For transparency, I miss this cut off by a bees ****
Ropeable, that is not the only thing you missed. You also missed the statistics on “boomer advisers that are arguably the source for half this industries issues”. No research completed here!!
Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. And for full disclosure I’m a boomer.
Get over Ropeable. Life’s to short. From a Boomer.
Next Goal: Change Annual Ongoing Fee Consent forms to a one-off fixed fee form, that is only changed when the (say $30 a month) fee changes (and allow for Opt out). This is how we can cost-effectively service low balance, hardworking families. There is no other way.
Interesting you use $30 month as your example. How can you provide a meaningful service for $360 per year?
changes the client address once every 7 years…?
What are you really doing for $4,400 pa?
I think I will be voting Labor forever….
without doubt, me too
I completed ethics as part of my uni degree (B.Bus (FP)) & for my CFP, but I still have to do the ethics unit as I didn’t hold an LoA in 2011 – ridiculously unfair.
We know this was passed so that Union Super funds could go out and hire some backpackers to just flog their products.
A sad day for the industry and an opportunity to prevent the above. Uneducated advisers with qualifications less than a hairdresser’s will continue to keep us down. Moaning they missed the memo from 15 years ago.
Cause your piece of paper means so much to the advice you give. Best news ever good planners can keep running their businesses
If they were good planners, they would have started studying 15 years ago.
How is that relevant?
You’ll never understand the benefits of belonging to a Profession.
Incorrect on three counts.
1. Union super funds already hire backpackers to flog their products. Our rogue regulators choose not to enforce the law against union funds, so it makes no difference what that law actually is.
2. Even if our rogue regulators were replaced with fair and honest professionals, backpackers could never qualify for the experience exemption. Most of them were at school in another country when the eligible time period started!
3. The “hairdresser” line was a media misrepresentation that was never true in practice. Even those with no qualifications other than RG146 (which was the minority) would have done a lot of other training as part of their dealer group’s induction and CPD program.
I have to support Anonymous at the head this thread. Anon, with great respect I think perhaps you too are wrong on three counts.
So, the experience carve out has now been granted.
Unfortunately, we have always been an industry of carveouts and grandfathering, all at the expense of professionalism.
All “carve outs and grandfathering” do is to distort the true education standards of the industry, stifle any inroads to professionalism, and allows all the regulators, and vested industry groups to decry the lack of professionalism and education standards when there is one of the many reviews that seemingly occur at regular intervals, which inevitably leads to more compliance, more regulation and in recent times, the Fasea exam and education standards, and the cycle continues.
Vertical integration, banks, sales models etc were the past main causes and who to say the future causes may still be vertical integration from the industry and super funds giving advice, or MDA providers perhaps and from the lower educated depending on what is finally approved.
The restricted term “Financial Planner etc” was brought in for the primary object was to restrict this to those authorised to provide financial advice and be listed on the ASIC register and also for consumer protection.
QAR and Minister Jones will be allowing Super funds etc will be able to provide scoped, scaled, or limited advice, if they meet the criteria above.
They will be able to use the restricted term as well.
The restriction of the term should only be for those that are on the ASIC register and fully meet the Fasea education standards. Otherwise, we are back to the handout of CFPs again from past times where no one can tell the difference especially the very people where the protection is needed being the consumers.
For those that don’t meet the Fasea education and thereby not being able to use the restricted term but are on the ASIC register, then there needs to be a term for them. This is like Lawyer and Conveyancer.
If there is a planning group created that will be factored around the experience pathway, then they should not be allowed to use the restricted terms.
Otherwise, it will all end up like the CFP again where we can claim the same level, but the disparity is confusing and wide.
And when there is an issue, we will be grouped as “financial planners”.
Come on, we were never getting professionalism, it was the carrot dangled by FPA and the likes to get us to do what the government wanted. When are we getting the shackles of government red tape taken off so we can self govern and be fully professionalism? Never going to happen.
All this rubbish we’ve been through should have been accompanied by if you do this by X date you can be a profession like doctors & accountants and self-regulate. But that was never the case so what’s the bloody point.
All this professionalism bullocks is just back patting rubbish adding red tape with none of the actual benefits.
What’s the point of a restricted term when the regulator call dodgy con-men ‘Financial Advisers/Planners’ anyway?
Someone who gets it.
it can’t change over night but it can change.
The industry bodies accepted extra red tape while allowing the regulators to keep the boot to our neck. Do you really think the regulators would give that power up?
In what world would they take on MORE risk for no benefit?
I think if the regulators want us to do anything over the bare minimum they need to allow self-governance & self-licensing. If we do the work to become a profession we get the benefits of a profession, not leave it up to the regulators to give it to us at some magical time in the future.
Next is the Class Action for the poor advisers that were forced out of the industry or sold their devalued business. Then another the Class Action for advisers with prior recognition looking to recoup of costs of their degrees when they are now not required…. Sign me up!
Should HAVE been a lawyer?
Not enough characters for “should have” but should’ve would have worked.
Given my experience and business structure, this is good news and a massive relief. To all the gentlemen asking for refunds on courses, relax! knowledge is its own reward. Having said that, anyone calling me lazy can meet me in the car park and we can sort out their concerns in a lively and convivial manner. Then I will go back to looking after my clients. Thank you again government for this one good decision.
there was no value to the client or myself from additional course work.
Common sense and promises kept.
Looking forward to reading the inevitable negative spin that some will be put on this.
It will assist greatly.
Anyone who is against the experience pathway, I would like you to place underneath my comment any empirical evidence, any academically reliable source, a genuine example of any existing profession that required its existing practicing members to go back to higher education and complete a degree after they had already been practicing legitimately under state laws in their era? I would also like you to investigate how many advisers hold other related degrees, so are already knowledgeable and familiar with academia. I am a little tired of hearing advisers gripe because of the little work they had to do to get their degree, instead of pulling together in a congenial spirit. YOU are the ones showing unprofessional attributes, by behaving and thinking in this manner.
I’m a little tired of being the scape goat for people like you.
you have made this a personal attack on me, I certainly hope you are not among the adviser ranks… because you are not acting very professionally. You don’t even know me and already you’ve judged me. I have a master’s degree in applied finance, completed a diploma in financial planning and currently studying towards a PhD. I think you need to clarify your comment.
Phil, not all lawyers, doctors, engineers and accountants get to cherry-pick components of their degrees. At least we know they have the discipline and capability of passing. Not sure if all advisers can claim the same.
Geraldine, this is not the answer I was looking for, but I will answer you because you genuinely appear to be attempting an answer of sorts: In the Middle ages prior to 1527, doctors, lawyers, and army captains were not much more educated than being able to lay claim to the ability to read and write,.. nevertheless, because the knowledge gap was so great, this was often sufficient to hold practice and be accepted by the general public.. Today, the education and knowledge gap is just as pronounced, regardless of Dr. Google and ready access to so much knowledge at the click of a button. Financial planning theory and the “body of knowledge” is growing, but research shows, the gap in financial literacy is actually widening. Those who have practiced as “students of life” and continued to learn and develop their knowledge, know far more than new graduates with the added advantage of extensive procedural knowledge gained through life experience. These practitioners are those that train emerging graduates. Our profession needs (requires) this “old’ talent to bring in the new. I agree, there was and maybe to a very small degree, those that have been tradies one day, completed a weekend course (old RG146) and then proceeded to provide advice. The purpose of the experience pathway is not to allow those to continue practicing, rather it is intended to preserve the industry talent that cannot be replicated in the universities, complimenting the learning experience of new entrants to the profession.
Completely disagree with everything you’re saying. The words ‘old talent’ are a real stretch. You’re talking about a generation that lived off hidden commissions and when the time came to change to a transparent fee structure they hid behind grandfathering. Most of the ‘old talent’ are only good at sales, limited technical knowledge, instead relying on paraplanners to do all the work for them. I don’t have an issue with an experience pathway but it must have a sunset clause. We can’t have someone who became an authorised rep in 2011 at age 22 after knocking off DFP 1-4 in 2 months, now being allowed to practice for the rest of their career without the need for any formal qualification. What an absolute joke. Anyone that argues this is an appropriate outcome must be one of those sitting in the ‘old talent’ category.
If you cannot supply a reasonable qualifying argument there’s no point my continuing…though, I do agree about the timeframe, to me old talent in any profession is those with 15-20 years plus. Having sales skills is not a negative…real sales is understanding your clients and clearly expressing to your clients that you can be trusted. The sales you’re referring to, I imagine, are the product floggers who had no vested interest in the right outcome for the customer, just meeting KPI’s. Financial planning combines a measure of sales psychology, social skills, technical knowledge, and ability. I am a beneficiary of the experience pathway and yet, I hold a master of Commerce degree from Griffith University and recipient of the award of academic excellence, a diploma in financial planning, and am undertaking a PhD. I do not have time to complete one more unit to meet the previous requirement, although I have completed the ethics unit. There are many older advisers in the profession who are far more knowledgeable and skillful than me but have not completed a degree. All of these new college graduates could learn much from them, as I did. Your understanding of those who have practiced for many years is so skewed it’s both incorrect and out-of-touch. The point you made about the 22 year olds practicing etc is in the minority, but if you actually spent some time speaking to even those practitioners, who by the way are in their 30s now, you would probably find many are completing further study’s, or are too busy caring for clients and raising a family to have time to study at the same time. (Actually, not many practices back then employed anyone under the age of 30 without life experience, so I don’t know where your stats come from)
After 20 years in the industry I’ve seen the worst cases of advice (or lack of) from all the shonks in the industry. In every instance it’s been older advisers selling product, not advising. Churning insurance clients with no product replacement. Sitting on huge grandfathered trails while offering no service. The response I always here is that they are in the minority, that’s rubbish, half the industry was made up of these people, hence the drop from 28k to 15k advisers. Now we might see some of them return because their experience gets them a free pass. This stops us from being a recognised profession, which in turn stops us from arguing for the removal of the current compliance regime. You can’t go to Govt. arguing that we should have the same license to use our professional judgement that Accountants and Lawyers have when they see us a bunch of uneducated salespeople. It needed a sunset clause, without it our industry is a joke not a profession.
…and in addition to my reply:
(1) you say you disagree… you’re entitled to, but bear in mind, I am synthesizing historical and academic reports from a large body of knowledge, so by disagreeing with me, you are in actually disputing the reputable facts brought by academia.
(2) the term – “old talent” is an empirical reference applying to all existing members of a professionalizing vocation, including financial planning, and is a term with its roots in the procedural and often tacit knowledge of experienced practitioners.
(3) you refer to a “dishonest generation”…I hope you are not an adviser, because your comments are inflammatory, bitter and wildly inaccurate. If you are an adviser, you need to look at your professional spirit, which is a little alarming.
(4) if the young adviser slips through on the experience pathway, it doesn’t mean their advice is wanting, they should have learned something by now.
…and finally, your understanding of what constitutes professionalism is not obvious by how you speak, and (FACT) no older profession required their existing practitioners to return to complete a university degree, in fact, they were the ones teaching and codifying procedural knowledge.
Without getting into a tit for tat argument – the problem is that the ‘old talent’ that you are referring to had such a low bar to entry. They aren’t professionals being asked to return to do more study, they’re just being asked to get some form of education under their belt. I’m not going to deny I’m bitter, bitter towards the banks and AMP for destroying our industry. Bitter towards the ‘old talent’ for churning and burning, resulting in LIF. You’re blinded because you can only see the positive for yourself, but for everyone who has a qualification, this is only a step backwards. If you read my post you’ll see that I’m not suggesting they should have to return to study, the experience pathway is fine by me, but it can’t roll on forever.
sorry, I’m not quite sure what your referring to when you say, “your not against the experience pathway, but it cant roll on forever..”…what does it mean, roll on forever?
I mean it needs a sunset clause. A limitation so that we don’t have people with only a Diploma in FS still practising as an Adviser in 40 years time. Which can happen under this arrangement.
Disgraceful
Round in circles we go.. I feel for you all, unfortunately when we have an uneducated Government with a do what I say, not what I do approach this is what happens. I have never seen so much tax dollar waist and incompetence in all my career. Kaplan won’t be happy.
I seriously didn’t think that Stephen Jones was going to do anything other than make noises. This is a small, but positive step in the right direction. I HOPE this might mean that some more common sense initiatives are implemented in the near future – not holding my breath though.
Many degree-holders welcome this. The lazy advisers will continue to bemoan the regulatory pressures without acknowledging their contribution to this, in the first instance. Don’t forget to dislike this comment.
So, Financial Adviser numbers decimated from approx 26,000 to under 16,000 due to abysmal, misguided legislation.
Now, 10,030 of the 16,000 remaining have been licensed on or before 2011 equating to 63% of current practising advisers.
10,000 experienced advisers already gone and probably at least half of the pre-2011 licensed 10,030 still yet to depart over the next 3-4 years.
Estimates will be approx only 10,000 advisers remaining by 2025-26.
A complete and unmitigated disaster.
If the moderator does not approve these comments, their editorial creditability is proven to be lacking.
F%%%
I spent $15,000 and countless hours upgrading my qualifications and now i do not need it. Who is going to compensate me? Also lossed $1.0M in trail commission. This industry is F%%%%
I understand, but if this degree has been so rewarding and important to you for your career and knowledge, why are you asking for a refund? If it was a complete waste of time and money, then of course you should be refunded. Not sure you can have it both ways.
Could I have my additional study expenses back too please , I have to pay the asic levy for what ??!!
what a disgrace
A very sad day for the profession
I completely agree. The so called “experience pathway” will hold the industry back YET AGAIN from becoming a real profession.
Why? I’ve settled 804 claims in my career, I actively manage 1.4bn in FUM and got my degrees in the 1990s, passed my FASEA examination 1st go, yet I was asked to go back and study a unit more because I have been in the role since the later 1990s. Experience means you learn from mistakes, arrogant advisers says experience doesn’t count so only a fool has an arrogant adviser still selling the Yield as a return to their clients on the client’s super fund whilst stealing $300 in ongoing service for doing NOTHING but reading a statement. 99% of advisers wouldn’t even know the name of the lead fund manager for the investment they put their client into- its the manager that makes money not the brand name you sell your dribble on.
If you really want to clean up the industry, it starts with Advisers stopping taking money for doing nothing, which means, any investment in a managed fund or index fund that an adviser has no influence on other than to stay or go, that’s not advice, that’s just stealing from a client’s future wealth.
Last year, 60% of AFCA complaints were from new advisers who had completed their “degree”, because they lacked true life experience in giving advice that got it wrong, yet arrogant advisers want to play the “: poor me” card.
If you don’t agree with this, then did you really do your “ethics” exam?
I don’t think anyone argues that experience doesn’t build on an adviser’s capabilities. For that matter experience builds on the capability of every person in every occupation. BUT experience alone does not make a good adviser ( or doctor, firemen, or accountant). One needs a very sound universally known and accepted formal education in one’s discipline. This has been missing for decades in the financial planning and advice area.
Best day ever
If you have degree, meeting 8 units in a similar area, do we still have to 1 unit of ethics. No one wants to go back to Uni. We did our time.
What is the date range for the 10 years experience? If it still 2007 to 31 December 2021 then its a fail. All those people with 9, years and 7 months missing out. Thats ridiculous. Does it include years as a paraplanner. Even now we dont know.
Good forward looking advisers yet again trapped by dinosaurs and another government not prepared to take a sensible and hard line. Just a repeat of other grandfathering rules – rules that contributed to the industry’s bad name that came out of the Royal Commission.
I think the 10 year experience starts from 2011?