Under the newly proposed guidance, advisers will have already met the standards requirement if they hold an approved qualification under the FASEA/FPEC register, have completed an AQF7 or FASEA approved qualification by 1 January 2024, or have completed a course that offers “at least eight units/courses” at AQF 8 level covering the fields of ethics, financial planning and technical requirements.
Advisers who hold a qualification not recognised on the FASEA/FPEC register of approved courses (even one titled as a financial advice qualification) will need to undertake an approved course before the compliance date, undertake an approved bridging course or approach an approved education provider to make up their education through individual study.
FASEA says it expects more bridging options will become available from 2019.
To view the full announcement from FASEA, visit https://www.ifa.com.au/images/Existing-Adviser-Qualifications.pdf.
The release of the guidance follows the release of the standards authority’s framework for new entrants to the industry on 26 October 2017.
This industry is gonski. No adviser above 55 in their right mind should consider doing this. No risk adviser in their right mind should consider doing this with the LIF and probably level only commission in 3 years.
No young people in their right mind should consider joining this industry.
It is time for everyone to spend more productive time planning for an earlier retirement and exit strategies for themselves and their customers in 5 years.
Now lets say realistically 60% of advisers will leave the industry early (and I think this will be very realistic) will the remaining 40% be in a position to buy the practices of the 60% leaving?
How are dealerships going to survive on less than half membership?
These are the issues that will be more important to address over the coming years.
If 60% of advisers leave and younger people are discouraged from joining, how will consumers get professional financial advice?
Most won’t be able to. They will be funnelled by advertising into (Labor aligned) union funds and (Liberal aligned) junk insurance. No wonder there is a political consensus for financial planner bashing.
All quiet on the FPA and AFA front. Useless fools
Mortgage broking is just starting to experience similar political and lobby group pressure to financial planning. However it is astonishing the difference in approach from their industry associations. They have been totally on the front foot in promoting the consumer benefits from mortgage broking, and refuting the lies and misinformation from media muckrakers. They have built a cooperative, coordinated alliance between most of the industry stakeholders, while readily accepting only those sensible reforms that are not draconian and ultimately anti-consumer. If only the FPA & AFA had done something similar.
It is what it is.
If you love the industry and you’re passionate about it, go and get a Grad Dip.
If you’re not that passionate about it, go do something else. There has been years of complaining on this topic already, and if most of us put that much energy into a Grad Dip. we’d be done already.
It sucks, but it’s not changing.
I think you will find that most of the complaining now is not coming from people who haven’t made the effort to get an education. The much louder and angrier complaints are coming from people who have already invested enormous amounts of time and money getting high quality bachelors and masters degrees from top tier universities. They have proven their ability to research, assess, and apply knowledge at the highest level regardless of subject matter.
For these people, being told they now have to get a Grad Dip in specific subject matter they have studied ad infinitum in 100 different on the job courses, is ridiculous. Particularly when these Grad Dips are only offered by 3rd rate institutions, whose name most people with a decent degree already would never want on their CV.
I completely agree. I did the ADFP through Mentor and it was a complete waste of time and money (I’m a risk adviser). The risk section was a joke and didn’t teach me anything I did not know already (some of it was also inaccurate) and the rest irrelevant to my business or customers. I’m not even sure if DFP and ADFP will hold any credit towards bridging courses but what I do know is that there will be a lot of money made by groups peddling useless bridging courses in the future.
The FPA and AFA become more and more of an embarrassing joke and its time to just get out.
A DFP or ADFP are barely worth anything. Open book exams haha. Of course you should need to do a lot more than that. Punched out my grad dip in a year while working fulltime, if everyone stopped complaining and just did it they would all be fine (especially as everyone apparently has such high level knowledge they shouldnt need to study so it should be a breeze).
These clowns have destroyed an industry with this garbage. Politicians stuff up (and Rip off) the nation all the time but they don’t need an AQF8. The FPA and AFA have vested interest in education course fees and membership fees rather than looking after their members. Useless.
This is a disgrace. What happened to the 100 point plan FPA? We have been sold a bucket of crap by the FPA for years now. 28 years experience Dip FP, CFP and numerous other courses completed but no recognition and back to school we go to do a full degree. Time to retire early as this industry is stuffed. 50% or more of the current financial planners will not survive past 2024 (either due to leaving early or not capable of doing a degree and passing) and I pity the ones who choose to stay and continue to get kicked from pillar to post as we have for the last 10 plus years. Enough is enough!
Most financial advice “reform” in recent years has focused on punishing the majority for the failings of a minority. It has driven many good advisers to early retirement, discouraged new entrants to the profession, and made it much harder for most consumers to obtain professional financial advice at a price they can afford.
Looks like FASEA will be continuing that trend.
I’m late 30’s and have been in financial planning since 1999 and advice has not only been my career, but a real passion, so I invested all my spare time and energy into being great at it.
The last few years though have seen my passion wane with all the changes that in real life are actually working against clients. With the regulatory requirements now, I can’t deliver a quality, compliant service for much under a $5,000 advice fee or similar ongoing, meaning the people who really need my advice and guidance won’t be able to access it.
If I need to obtain a degree (I have dipFP, ad.dipFP & real CFP and SMSF accred), it will be in another career choice where professionals are actually enabled to help clients…
Mate, totally relate. I have just lost my mojo with this career, 47 now and feel disappointed that I have to look at alternative employment options, the powers to be have destroyed or will destroy this industry.
I think this is fantastic.They obviously know It will double the price of a financial plan .Who cares about the consumers……..they dont .
As a past adviser who turned to product and then Practice Management roles I have watched like all of you as an industry i once really loved and enjoyed being part of get torn apart by politicians, lawyers and academics who claim to know the best for Advisers and the public but yet have never either advised nor have an adviser…I now spend each night contemplating what other profession to move towards now that in reality the move back to advice i was so looking forward to has evaporated in front of me. There is no one even to speak to or scream at that would make any difference. Also the FASEA doc does nothing to explain what happens to the Advanced Diploma in terms of RPL when combined with practical experience. And if you’re after the right bridging course you still have to wait again until 2019 when they reckon more will become available…its a travesty and joke. It could have been a profession with so much potential and deliver so much good and now only the very wealthy will get the face to face hands on approach. The advisers left after this rubbish just wont have the time or inclination to deal with avg Joes…all stakeholders in this should hang their heads
I feel your pain, truly i do as I am in the same situation. I am 57 and think every day what I will do in my forced retirement in 2-3 years after I sell my quite substantial client base of risk clients. That there is no seperate licence on which we can focus for risk is an absolute travesty. That the academics, pollies and life company execs want us to pay $10K and God knows how much time away from family and clients to learn fully irrelevant things to our job disgusts me further. Where the hell were the life companies and their “passionate” execs when we needed to get this Risk-only licence up and running. Crickets.
Has or is the FPA or FASEA taking into account Risk Only Insurance Advisers who do not do any financial investment planning , (only insurance advice )who have been in the industry giving advice for 15 plus years and are In there 50s and 6os age group ?
Are these very experienced and well educated individuals ( educated by their years of work and educated by life experience in the role ) given their on the job knowledge , experience and many years of tenure as a risk insurance specialist ,now left in the position of do the study and pay the cost of further education of $10,000 per year or more or leave the industry altogether?
Would it be fair to say that a insurance risk adviser with 15 and plus years of insurance only risk advice and who is compliance rated a , and does all continuing ed requirements does not already meet the standards of the second paragraph item 2 of the below email?
from FPA’s email
2. Have completed, by 1 January 2024, a course that offers at least 8 units/courses, at AQF level 8, covering fields that include:
• ethics, professional attitudes and behaviours
• financial planning and advice process
• technical requirements.
The riskie of whom you speak (me! and many others – you too I assume?) will NOT meet their onerous qualifications. There should have been by now a separate licence for riskies as it is very much a different job and discipline to investment planning and having to know about derivatives, CD’s, currency exchange and the other academic parts of these over-the-top courses/degrees they want us to do. Makes no sense as personal risk insurance is different to investment is different to general insurance is different to advising on realestate – there should be a licence for each as there is with real estate already (woefully inadequate as it is).
.
No, it disgusts me that there is no separate risk licence yet – AFA has failed here as has FPA AND ALL of the life company execs in not championing this. I would stay if this was all done and we had our own RELEVANT licence but I will leave in just a few short years as I will be deemed NO GOOD to my clients anymore after 32 years as I won’t be able to write essays on derivatives etc as the academics insist I must. Go work that ridiculous situation out – I can’t!
Have you been awarded a degree for your 15 years of experience? If so, no.
I saw the writing on the wall when I decided to make FP my career and undertook a Commerce degree majoring in Fin Planning from Griffith Uni. Completed in 2007. Now that same course in not recognized unless completed from 2009 according to FASEA. Shafted is an understatement! I’ve also gone on to complete CFP in 2013 and now I still need to do additional study. Whats the difference? Well done FPA, your CFP accreditation looks like it stands for nothing because of the grandfathering you gave to all the old lifey’s as its not even mentioned.
a) Institutions that have awarded a qualification (Degree or Higher issued since the
inception of the AQF in 1995) that is essentially similar to an approved Degree (i.e. it
contains at least 10 of the same 12 core subjects as a program that is approved) will
be able to make an application to FASEA to have their qualification retrospectively
approved.
Why would an institution apply to have an old course it no longer offers approved? According to the FASEA document, there may be a fee involved. It is utterly ridiculous. It is FASEA’s decision to exceed their mandate with these excessive requirements, so they should do the work by seeking out and approving similar courses.
I would think they’d be interested in retaining students?
Suggest we all overload FASEA with RPL applications. They will be so busy sifting through the mounds of paperwork and reviewing our previous degrees, DFPs, CFPs, Masters etc that they may need to push 2024 out further or abandon it altogether!
The original government requirement was for all advisers to have a degree. FASEA has redefined this as all advisers need to have a [i]recently acquired[/i], [i]financial planning specific[/i] degree. FASEA has completely overstepped their authority in doing so. One wonders if there was undue influence from academics who have been gifted an absolute goldmine with this excessive approach.
Yes, conflicts of interest should be investigated here..
[i]””A Degree means any Degree of Commerce, Finance, Economics, Accountancy, Business from any Australian University”” .[/i]. How easy would of it been to define a degree as that ? Perhaps someone could explain why FASEA feels my Bachelor of Commerce Degree is not sufficient as it’s too old. Apparently they feel my ability to read an Annual report, P & L statement, appreciate debt levels, have an understanding of contract law, an understanding of economics etc is not as important as knowing when to hand out an FSG. Can you imagine the quality of future financial planners we’ll produce. Regardless I will need to go and enrol in Grad Dip with some exemptions or wait and risk my degree being many years older whilst they stuff around with bridging courses.
This is utterly shambolic. FASEA was supposed to bring all advisers up to a degree or equivalent. What they have done goes so far beyond their mandate it is outrageous. Kelly O’Dwyer needs to step in immediately.
Over Complicated ODwyer is the moron who have butchered the Superannuation legislation, killed Life Insurance advice with LIF and now this rubbish education stunt. What’s she going to fix ?
Gaawwwddd, if we have plummeted to the depths where we need O’Dwyer to step in we are in real shambles. She couldn’t find or save her own bum with both hands let alone fix anything else! Gawd help us.
This is such a disgrace I am lost for words. I spent ten years of my life studying part-time while working. I gave up time with my family, spent tens of thousands in fees and gave up income I could have earned at the time. Despite having a Masters Degree in FP from one of our top Universities, I am treated like a dirty salesman and they are sending me back to school. This is a dark day for our profession and FASEA has failed massively. They were supposed to bring all advisers up to a higher standard. They have no right targeting those who did the right thing.
write to your local MP please. I’m in the same position. Don’t expect the FPA to fix this.
Well, I just read through the whole FASEA diatribe and the (only) key date appears to be the 1st of January 2024. No mention of the supposed ‘exam’ we must pass by [b]1st January 2021.[/b] – has this exam been trashed now? Please explain Pauline?! What is it with these people, honestly? They go to all this trouble to trot out a paper that took God knows how much money and time and they make no reference to a key date that was widely circulated previously as an important milestone.
.
The whole document does nothing to help a risk adviser see the necessity or reasonableness in attaining the qualifications. AQF8 – really?! – so I can advise a client of 30 years, that I know very well, that he should increase or decrease his income protection and life cover? That sort of advice is 99% of my job! Anyway, dribble it is, at best, this first paper from the new kid on the block. Hinders and confuses rather than helps. Should we be surprised. OK, as you were . . .
The exam will be what it will be, and its 3-4 yrs away. Its the educational requirements that will take longer to get in place which would be why they have looked to release this now.
Jimmy, in many previous papers and advices they mooted strongly an exam that would need doing in 2021. This was BEFORE any of these other dates about having degrees and other nonsense. I’m wondering where talk of that exam went because if it has gone I can stay until 2024 now and not have to retire in 2021. Anyone know?
Yes, 80% will go and it wouldn’t surprise me at all with this FASEA nonsense. They’ve turned into an ASIC-like creature that comes out with indecipherable corporate-speak solely crafted to justify their own existence and enable them to continue at the taxpayer funded trough for the next quarter or so. From what I can discern I will most definitely be one of the ‘lost’ advisers. Uni degrees for risk advice – what hogwash. Where the HELL is the separate licence for risk advisers – a totally different discipline and job than investment planning. And why are ASIC not also focused on the rip-offs in real estate which is more prolific than our industry? Client best interest ASIC – they would not have a clue, seriously. Can’t really say what the year will be I’ll go, looking at the FASEA mess how the hell would I know? I will hang on as long as I can without wasting ANY time or MONEY getting these fully unnecessary [i](for me in risk advising)[/i] “qualifications” they are trying to formulate. Trying being the operative word.
.
No, sadly, After 32 yrs I will leave the industry I used to love and the clients I still do love and spend more time riding my motorbike, getting the garden back in shape and spending more time with the kids. The date? I dunno . . . let you know when FASEA fixes this ridiculous mess it has just unveiled. Probably around 2021 when I will be 60 – tax free super that year for me so not too bad timing! Tax free super and more time for me and family and bike and garden – maybe these twits causing all this idiocy have done me a favour after all by forcing me from the industry. 2 year clawback now too remember! – I certainly WON’T be [b]looking [/b]to write any new business after 1 Jan’18 unless CLEARLY needed for a client’s best interest.
.
That clawback term is surely the most adviser-punitive but life company friendly change of all – boggles my mind why the life companies didn’t resist that for us (well’ we do know why of course – just surprised they didn’t fake more concern about it for marketing’s sake!) I’d have stayed for another 15 years otherwise – that was the plan 10 years ago. I suppose in retiring early, in an odd way, thanks are in order to ASIC, FASEA et al . . . .
FASEA – you are discriminating against older (but not old) advisers. I have a Masters in FP, DFP 1-8 and SMSF specialist and Aged care Specialist. When I did the masters it was all that was offered but it hasn’t made the list. Now I have children and a business to run. I don’t have time to satisfy whatever power trip you are currently on. My clients are doing great and I do about 90 CPD pts a year. Yeah, I consider myself very qualified – are you? I can’t believe the above has been allowed to even be put down as a proposal.
Well bloody said. Love to get one of these idiot pollies and/or academics and rub their nose well into your comment!!!
Yet another example where a regulator has chosen to completely ignore the recommendations of the FPA. So much for their fabulous “100 points” system. For goodness sake FPA, get your conflicted house in order so that the regulators take you seriously. Until then all these “whitepapers” and “representations” are just a waste of members money generating nothing but false hope.
Agreed. All we hear from the FPA is “wait for the detail, she’ll be right”. Well guess what, we’re still waiting and it’s a bloody mess!
Whilst i will await more details i have questions of what’s counted or not and how much is counted etc ?
I have past education and experience of :
– B.Ec (Double major in Economics and Business Law) completed 1996. [Which seems to my understanding to not be a recognised degree for anything under FASEA / FPEC ?]
– Started work as Authorised Rep adviser in 1998, thus 19 years experience.
– Full 8 subject Dip FP (before it was Adv Dip FP) completed 2002
– Grant Abbott SMSF Specialist Adviser Courses Part 1 & 2 at 30 credit points each to become SMSFA Accredited Specialist Adviser, completed 2005.
– UTS / FPA Estate Planning Specialist Adviser 2013.
Plus of course all the rest of the ongoing CPD, etc.
So how do i work out if i qualify or not ?
Do i have to go to the high court ? 🙄
BEc/LLB – no, see page 6 of announcement. Your DFP(ADFP) is undergrad level. Based on this FASEA announcement, you will not meet 2024 requirements.
In spite of all your previous education, I think you will have to do an additional Post Graduate Diploma. Exactly the same requirement as a 1980s era life insurance salesman who left school after Year 10 and has never completed any further education. Prior experience seemingly lets you enrol in a Post Grad Diploma without doing a degree first. But most prior degrees count for absolutely nothing in FASEA world.
It’s a system that rewards people who have avoided any sort of higher education until forced into it, and punishes people who made a voluntary effort to get higher education earlier on in their lives.
I have a Degree (Accountancy), A Grad Dip Finance, A Diploma, two decades of experience, a list of short course longer than my arm costing me several thousands of dollars, a couple of industry awards, I write course materials for 3 Universities and unfortunately now I’m not educated enough. Now I’m going to have to enroll in a Grad Dip of FP course and study “Investments”. Seems like the Financial Adviser down the road I know who studied DFP 1-4 and gave up when he failed DFP 5 is the smarter one here. Onwards and upwards.
Try reading the document. FASEA has totally shafted you (and the rest of us) your extensive qualifications mean nothing. You have to go back to school, spend thousands of dollars and waste your life completing a graduate diploma. I have already done this twice in my life. It is hell.
This is a #@!## outcome. 18 years ago I felt like the entry requirements were too low and I went out and did further study in addition to my Degree. They are now totally worthless and I’ve been punished for idealistic notions of trying to lift standards in this industry. I should of just done a TAFE course. There will be a lot of highly skilled and highly qualified financial planners out there with Degree’s and post graduate studies and Diploma’s, who will now have to go back and pay several thousands of dollars to study Introduction to taxation, introduction to financial planning 101 or make a decision to leave.
Degree’s and Diploma’s? Should of? Mate I’m not sure you would have (would of?) been accepted into TAFE. Wehre did yu lern yur inglish?
That’s some great input there mate. Thanks for correcting me. I’ll be sure to do the same for you Anonomus. My apologies for the poor grammar and typo’s but I’m recovering from a car accident and was typing quickly and trying to add further thought to the article. Would it help if I said something in latin? As they say ut te ipsum
Clear as Mud… You need a PHD to work out this mess.
Merry Christmas…
Raises more questions than answers
So this is some sort of joke right? All the approved degrees have only been around for the last 5-7 years…. they weren’t around 8 years ago when I did my degree. There is no reference to DIp.FS and Adv.DipFS as existing bridging courses, and CFP is only 4 subjects…
We are basically going to lose 80% of the existing advisers out there… the only ones that will remain is those that have Masters degrees or degrees in past 5 years, which is very very few.
Look what happens when the academics get the keys to the Star Chamber.
So what does it mean if you are a CFP ? who has done 8 units ?
8 units in what and when (year)?
Absolutely worthless. It was just a money making machine for the FPA. Just as valuable as the two day course in SMSF I did. However you”ll might be able to get advance standing for a Graduate Certificate in Financial Planning you’ll have do to. Usually most Universities will allow between 30% to 50% so you’ll likely only have to do half a Grad Dip or Grad Certificate or AQF 8 course..
Actually, no McGlashen. You need 8 subjects at AQF7 or above according to this announcement. Exemptions would mean you haven’t done the full 8 subjects in a GDFP even if you were awarded that qualification.
If you have a look at say Kaplan GDFP it’s listed on the FASEA list. and the link to the document in this article implies/reads as you need to have “either or” a course on that list “or” 8 subjects. The GDFP at $2,300 per subject allows for upto 50% exemption which means you could do 4 subjects costing $9,300 and maybe get exemptions for the other 4. You’d then have a piece of paper with a GDFP. Perhaps if you did a course somewhere else not listed the exemptions would not count. Do you reckon you need to do all 8 ?
YES. If you did 6 subjects (b/c you got exemptions) to get your GDFP you still need to do 2 more subjects at AQF7 or above to get to the requisite standard.
thanks Cotton Eye Joe : )
Surely it can’t be right that exemptions mean you don’t meet the requirement? Let’s say I have a Masters degree in finance already, which means I only need to do 6 units to complete a Master of Financial Planning, you’re saying that doesn’t count? you have to do 8 units, even if the uni will grant you sufficient exemptions to award the qualification with completion of less than 8 units?
Here’s the relevant section (RE Post Grad) from the announcement;
“have completed, by 1 January 2024, a course that offers at least 8 units/courses, at AQF level 8, covering fields that include:
• ethics, professional attitudes and behaviours
• financial planning and advice process
• technical requirements”
So you need to complete a course at AQF level 8 which offers at least 8 units. It doesn’t say you can’t get exemptions for some of those units based on prior study.
You either have to have the piece of paper (the Grad Dip award) in one of the specialized courses now listed in the FPEC list of approved degrees…the piece of paper can be achieved by recognised prior learning and exemptions or by doing the 8 units at AQD level. However FAESA have stated that they’ll be reviewing the recognition of prior learning to ensure it meets the 8 units requirements.
Real CFPs have done 5 subjects at AQF8 level. Hopefully a bridging course (or perhaps a CFP extension?) will become available to do the other 3 units needed.
Grandfathered CFPs were only required to complete studies at AQF5 level. So the full 8 units at AQF8 would be required. (Or an approved AQF7 degree).
I’m what you call a ‘real CFP’, but we now have to wait another 12 months at least to see if that will be the case and what such courses will entail and of course they will charge rediculous fees as we have no choice… Other than to spend that timy getting a degree in an alternate profession.
What if you have a previous full graduate profession, then 30 years in advice with a DipFP , then a 5 year absence for successful cancer treatment. If I want to return am I new or continuing. ?
You are an “Existing Adviser” if you are licensed – that is on the ASIC FAR – on or before 31/12/18
New if you enter again post 2019 is my understanding… have a similar issue with an work colleague
If you are on the ASIC adviser register on the 1st of January 2019 you won’t be considered a new entrant and have to do a whole Degree. You’ll fall under the rules outlined above. I,e your Degree’s and Diploma from 30 years ago are now too old and you’ll likely have to do further education. You might be able to get advanced standing for a few subjects.
If you are included on the Financial Adviser Register between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018 you are classified as an existing adviser.
That’s not correct. The definition of “relevant provider” is basically a licensed person. See my earlier post
I like the FASEA people, however 7 years from now the only requirement to provide good advice will be a course in data entry. The algorithms already exist to do the rest.
Yep i am sure algorithms will be wonderful managing real client relations. FinTech has limited ability to be an actual financial adviser. 😆
Haha! You’re right Anonymous, all the good advisers will be gone and the only ones remaining will be pure academics that thrive on being in a classroom and getting paper qualifications! The robo-advice machines will be pumping out insurance policies without underwriting at application, the politically correct special interest groups will think all their Christmases have come at once as all the commission-hungry and untrustworthy advisers have been pushed out. Client best interest will be reduced to a birthday wish on a client yearly statement. Clients will battle life companies for claims without any risk adviser to help (one that knows his/her stuff anyway) and freshly graduated uni students (God luv ’em) will be populating the life companies to man the phones (no face to face anymore – don’t know how to do that they’ll say).
.
If you all think I am writing this 100% tongue-in-cheek I can say you are only 1% correct – i.e. the life company probably won’t bother with the birthday wish on the annual statement. Everything else will come to pass I can virtually guarantee it. It will be too late by the time it is all seen clearly – by life groups (who want advisers [i]OUT [/i]and 2 yr clawbacks & less comm to hasten it), ASIC, special interest groups, the looney left and, saddest of all, the clients.
.
It truly isn’t hard to see the future on all this reasonably clearly – at least not for a veteran life adviser who is at the coal face each day and knows intrinsically what [i]SIGNIFICANT [/i]benefits to clients will be lost due to LIF and other changes – I can see it clearly. Shame the ones forcing the changes for their own agendas (not client’s) can’t see it too.