Speaking to ifa, Mr Kendall said the Certified Financial Planner course will likely be able to serve as a bridging course for existing advisers looking to comply with the new professional standards regime, even though FASEA has not yet confirmed it.
“There is a group of people that will be required to do an approved bridging course. That bridging course we still have no guidance on. We don’t know what it will entail,” Mr Kendall said.
“While we don’t have confirmation, it is inconceivable that those who have completed the CFP education course would not be able to have that as their bridging course … it’s almost 100 per cent that.”
Of the 10 knowledge areas that the Financial Planning Education Council – a subsidiary of the FPA – takes into account when approving university degrees, the CFP covers nine, the chair pointed out.
Indeed, Mr Kendall went further, suggesting the global CFP designation has somewhat inspired FASEA chief executive Deen Sanders – a former FPA employee – and his authority’s approach.
“If you look at FASEA and what they are doing, in many ways it is a replica of the CFP certification program. There is an exam at the end, there is ongoing CPD [and] there is a requirement to be monitored by a code monitoring body,” he said.
“FASEA’s complete set of requirements look very similar to the CFP complete set of requirements.”
Listen to the full interview with Neil Kendall:
What was required from the FPA was a media release stating FASEA got their definition of a degree wrong and a statement saying they don’t agree, especially around the 10 year ruling. This however would take courage and conviction. Instead members have only received “interpretation” assistance. Why would you belong to the FPA when the only benefit is assistance in interpretation already imposed Government regulation????
isn’t one of their core functions advocacy for members ? oh wait, you mean the one’s that pay the big dollars
[quote=Anonymous]As someone who’s been a practicing backyard witch doctor for 20 years, I feel very much the same! I’ve been knocked back 17 times so far by the Medical Board who [b]refuse[/b] to recognise me for what I am – a Doctor.
I’m very ethical, my business is booming and no-one has died on my operating table (which looks a lot like an old door balanced atop 2 oil drums, but is [b]definitely[/b] not). Despite having absolutely no recognised qualifications I’ll continue to fight – I’m with you brother![/quote]
Eloquently put, well done. Really puts how silly the “I’m experienced” argument is. You need to be both to be a professional.
but you don’t just get rid of all those witch doctors over night. you “transition” them.
Hence a timeframe until 2024 to transition!
Definite step forward. Makes sense that those who did the legit CFP should be recognised if they already have a degree as long as the grandfathered CFP’s aren’t just grandfathered again and again. If they do somehow consider grandfathered CFP’s “qualified” then they may as well scrap the whole regime as apparently the exam is going to be watered down to cater to those without technical ability already.
Mr Magoo has spoken.
Natar , why are you constantly worried about old CFP ‘s . I am an older CFP with 40 years experience in financial markets , never had a complaint and have a successful business that is growing each year . Its about ethical behaviour and doing the right thing by your client . I think all old and new planners should do an ethics subject now and brand newbies should have a 2 year internship .
no, its also about being qualified. experience is only a part of the deal
As someone who’s been a practicing backyard witch doctor for 20 years, I feel very much the same! I’ve been knocked back 17 times so far by the Medical Board who [b]refuse[/b] to recognise me for what I am – a Doctor.
I’m very ethical, my business is booming and no-one has died on my operating table (which looks a lot like an old door balanced atop 2 oil drums, but is [b]definitely[/b] not). Despite having absolutely no recognised qualifications I’ll continue to fight – I’m with you brother!
Only CFP’s who commenced within the last 10 years will be auto accepted. The rest well….best be bridging.
Pull your head in Natar.
To enrol in the CFP program you need a degree qualification. So if you have a qualifying degree you satisfy FASEA requirements. So what’s the point of doing the CFP then?
guess 1. you like to waste money
guess 2. you think the cfp after your name is prestigious
guess 3. you think the cfp will generate you new clients
guess 4. you think the cfp will make life easy for you as a practitioner because you have fewer pieces of paperwork to file as your opinion as a professional is worth something
guess 5. you think the cfp is highly valued by your colleagues, regulators, other stakeholders and industry participants
guess 6: i guessed wrong
thanks everybody for your vote of confidence, so many thumbs up.
All for the CFP education program being approved as a bridging course. Time to deliver FPA.
don’t believe 90% of the rubbish put out on here.
Gee. What a shock. The FPA, otherwise known as the FSC Prisoner Association, is assuming that everyone who left it remains committed to the cause.
If adopting CFP was that simple, and not locked into multiple insto centred conflicts of interest, the academics would have some sort of collective positive view on it.
CFP, in a form, is the USA standard for semi compulsory accreditation . The USA view on control of financial planners is about as much in step with the Australian view as is their view on gun control. You know all the nice people obey the law and the rest do as they please.
The CFP program provides some excellent educational value and is a reasonable resource for development of financial planning skills in the absence of any real world long term experience. However it is basically a learner driver course and does nothing to deal with the needs of someone who knows very well how to drive and just requires recognition of that fact.
“100%” should be interpreted as 50:50 (at best) given the FPA’s track record on this.
that’s right so CFP’s do not need to be fearful. you won’t have to do any further study
YAY! see i said not to panic
Don’t forget the FPA also said its members wouldn’t be subject to Opt-In, as they were bound by the FPA’s Code of Conduct.
Until FASEA confirms it in writing there is still every reason to panic. If FASEA doesn’t immediately clarify this issue, or tries to fob it off to a “consultation process”, you can be certain they are trying to push through excessive and draconian regulation. We have seen this movie before.
there’s no reason to panic either way. There’s 6 yrs before the new rules kick in, plenty of time to see what the rules will be and make the necessary adjustments. It’s not like it needs to be done by 30 June this year…
There’s only a few months before the new rules are set in stone. Once the phony “consultation process” starts it will be too late. If advisers sit back and do nothing now they will end up with yet another round of excessive regulation.
The length of time advisers would have to comply with that regulation is not the point. Making sure the regulation is fair and reasonable and aligned with the legislation is the primary issue.
How do you figure 6 years? This year doesn’t count as we won’t know the final rules until after the second semester has started and you would be mad to count the second semester of 2023 as you would lose your livliehood if you fail the last subject. So in my book, it’s 4.5 years. That’s not a long time for those who need to complete an 8 subject grad dip. Especially those who haven’t been to uni for a while.
Many providers offer courses on a trimester basis. Just do one per trimester (which is very manageable for time strapped people) and you’ll get it done inside 3 years.
What about the older advisers who were effectively ‘gifted’ their CFP due to years in the industry? These are mostly advisers who have a diploma and no degree, and have not specifically ‘completed’ the CFP but have the designation?
what about all the other graduates of other degrees who have no financial planning degree and only rg146 or adfp what about them. they qualify. ? if so, then so should all grandfathered CFP’s.
Well no, they don’t qualify. Did you even read the article? They would be required to do the bridging course not having a financial planning degree.
Kendall and others have been quite clear to distinguish between the CFP course and the CFP designation. This is precisely to stop undereducated grandfathered CFPs continuing to sneak through on the back of an appalling decision made by the FPA 20 years ago. FPA management has been too gutless to rectify that error themselves and is essentially letting FASEA play bad cop.