Last week, ifa reported that a number of members within the independent and non-aligned advice community have raised concerns that the FASEA board unveiled by the federal government in April is not able to properly represent their interests due to ties with the financial institutions.
While former FPA chair Matthew Rowe and former AFA president Deborah Kent – the two FASEA members representing the “industry” within the board’s membership – both declined to comment, fellow board member Mark Brimble told ifa that critics misunderstand the body’s intent.
Dr Brimble said that there’s “probably a range of elements of the sector that say they’re not represented”, but said the point of FASEA is not to advocate or represent for the industry’s interests.
“The legislation that formed the board has pretty specific categories of backgrounds that the board directors meet – there’s the one ethicist, the one academic, the three consumer representatives and the three from the industry and the chair,” he explained.
“While it doesn’t leave scope for every particular machination of the industry to be represented, I don’t think it was the government’s intention for the board to be a representative working party that had lots and lots of people on there.”
Adviser Chris Morcom of Hewison Private Wealth described Dr Brimble as a “pre-eminent educator” and said the Griffith University academic has a “wealth of experience that can be leveraged by the board”.
Its not hard to see the conflict with the 2 particular industry representatives who are historically aligned with insto’s selling their own product under the illusion of best interest’s duty advice to clients. Having to maintain a facade of that approach is OK by contributing to an ethics and education systems that allows the flawed distribution/advice model to continue is the very conflict issue raised and the lack of adequate representation of the competing view is the problem. Have an education and ethics system that starts with a premise you can’t provide advice if what you, or your employer, earns is varied by what people chose to invest in. A non aligned representative would see that as fundamental tenet of any education and.or ethical model.
Is the acronym wrong….shouldn’t it be the FALSE board! 😉
That’s exactly what will happen. And Dr Rafferty of Deakin said as much yesterday in his comments that some advisers shouldn’t whinge about costs of a degree. Snouts in the trough !
Mark Brimbles representation on this board is a conflict of interest in itself. He’s in the business of selling University degrees and text books and will receive a direct benefit. A very clear conflict of interest. Mark my words that it will be a requirement to do a Degree, a Grad Cert or a Grad Dip of FP for most advisers and any older Degrees, non finance degrees of any standing will be disregarded, and certainly years of professional development, obtained via privately run institutions will be completely disregarded.
They’re not your words. That’s the law.
Incredulous, yes. However, will your existing Masters degree from 1974 in Finance be applicable in 2027? Would it be unfair to make the 20 year veteran with Masters and Bachelor degrees from 1974 go out and do a bridging course? What about the adviser with a Degree in Engineering and just a Diploma in Financial Planning. Is a non finance degree relevant ? There is still are lot of detail to work out here Incredulous. If it was as simple as saying you need a degree we would not need these monkeys, would we. Mark my words the solution will be a certain bridging course obtain from a certain institution.
Phillip you seem to display a certain level of cynicism that speaks more about you than it does about any of the educators out there, including the one that’s been included on the board. The board will be determining what courses meet the AQS framework and given the breadth of educational providers out there, i find it laughable that you’re suggesting the only option will be a bridging course from Griffith Uni. Seriously? Even if Prof Brimble dared to try that on, which he wouldnt, he’s one voice in nine and it needs to be ratified by the parliament. So he’s no chance, but you already knew that.