Addressing the SMSF Association national conference in Sydney this morning, Dr Sanders responded to concerns about a stipulation in FASEA’s proposed guidance, which states advisers who completed a financial planning qualification but “not within the last 10 years” may have to undergo further study.
Dr Sanders clarified that FASEA has not yet made a final decision regarding the relevance of degrees obtained more than a decade ago but that the authority is looking at a similar academic policy as a possible measure of appropriateness.
“We made no statement that any degree older than 10 years is unnecessary,” he said.
“What we made a clear statement on was that this was referenced for how people might seek credit for the qualifications they already hold, in relation to higher education providers.
“I want to emphasise that that’s an academic policy, not yet a regulatory policy. We see it as relevant as a measure – qualifications will get stale – but we have not yet made a hard and fast rule about it.”
Earlier in his speech, Mr Sanders noted that any degrees older than 1995 would have been studied prior to the implementation of the Corporations Act, adding that while this doesn’t mean degrees prior to this are irrelevant, that “qualifications are of their time”.
“People seem to be deeply offended at the idea of having a qualification from 30 years ago and having to go and get a new one, I can just tell you that that’s not necessarily a demonstration of professional strategy or success,” he said.
“Education is a continuous idea.”
Dr Sanders answered a number of pre-vetted questions from SMSFA stakeholders, but did not take any questions from the floor.
What Sanders did say at the conference was that they underestimated the level of anxiety about this, given that the changes for education for existing advisers have a 6 year timeframe for completion. This left plenty of scope for people who need to upgrade their qualifications to be able to do so. Their was also the issue of there being no transitional pathways or bridging courses at present for existing advisers to undertake, apart from signing up for the Grad Cert in FP. To an extent he is correct, there is plenty of time to upgrade quals depending on where you start from. If you already have a degree in a related field – accounting, commerce, business, finance, economics, etc – then you may only have to do a bridging course that isnt the up to 8 subject Grad Cert. You may be able to do a shorter bridging course or maybe the 4 unit Grad Dipl in FP. Either way, plenty of time and no need to rush out the door & sign onto a course. For other advisers who only have RG146 from a 2 week course or out of a cornflake packet then they may need to do something significantly more. And I guess that this is the point of the whole exercise. If you have people who have already completed significant levels of study versus those that have moved into financial planning because the barriers to entry have been low and there’s good money to be made. I dont think that anybody would have an issue with someone who has the absolute minimum in requirements being made to upskill/improve their education levels, no matter how long they have been doing this. As an aside, it would be interesting to get a breakdown of those advisers who have been banned from the industry and cross-reference that to their education levels.
well said. no need to panic for degree qualified planners, plenty of time to upgrade your quals and most you will need to do is 4 subjects in 6 years so all good.
it’s only people with RG146 that need to worry, as you won’t be able to just sign up and wing it
There is a perfectly good bridging course which many planners with older degrees have already done. It’s the 5 unit, Masters level, CFP program.
Anonymous have you been keeping up with this? CFP counts for nothing under the FAESA proposals.
The CFP [b]designation[/b][i][/i] counts for nothing. That’s because the CFP designation has been devalued by the grandfathered CFPs who obtained it with minimal education. However there has been no announcement about bridging courses yet. The CFP [b]course[/b][i][/i], which only a subset of CFP holders have completed, seems perfectly suited to be a FASEA approved bridging course.
I agree. I did mine 6 years ago. But advisers who haven’t met need confidence FAESA are going to recognise the units completed, and not just refer them to a Grad Dip for exemptions. Exemptions and a course that stands in its own right are 2 different things.
I couldn’t agree more. The CFP designation counts for nothing for those that had it grandfathered to them as it was obtained with minimal education, in a lot of cases. It is very misleading and deceptive to the public and this designation (grandfathered) should be reviewed and reversed. I trust that FASEA is aware of this.
yes, and its AQF accredited at Level 9 equivalent to a masters degree. it’s irrelevant whether others agree or not, and whether FASEA accept it or not, that is a moot point
Well said Anonymous – I couldn’t agree more. Although likely to be unpopular, my thoughts on this current mess are simple:
If you have a degree, then sit tight as the path forward will become clearer and is very unlikely to be as onerous as many currently believe. I completed a financial planning degree not too long ago, and was given plenty of credits (RPL) for my Dip FP, Adv Dip FP, and years of industry experience. It cut my degree quite significantly.
However, if you’ve based your career on a quickie course, you are likely to need to apply yourself to significant further education or consider your future in this profession.
Although I consider that my years of experience (and others’ years of experience) in this line of work are extremely valuable, there is work to be done on improving the perception of this profession and weeding out some of the rogue element. Making it harder to get in is one step, and bringing our “profession” into line with all the other professions (such as law, medicine, accounting) that require a degree is necessary.
Really, the biggest shame in all this is not that we are being required to move forward, but that it is being handled so poorly from a communications point of view.
How could FASEA botch something so simple? Here is the actual legislation: “The first standard is that: (a) the person has completed a bachelor or higher degree, or equivalent qualification, approved by the standards body”. How on earth did this descend into a discussion about 10 year old degrees, 30 year old degrees, ‘stale’ degrees, “having to go and get a new one” etc. God help us when they move on to the more complex issues such as the code of ethics and the exam.
A degree may be ‘stale’ but your skill, knowledge and competence should increase constantly as a result of successful study (and experience).
The aim should be to achieve, sustain and enhance competence rather than to have a ‘fresh (as against stale)’ degree.
It really does go to show how far out of touch with reality this bloke really is.
Why does a NEW $20,000-$30,000 degree need to be the ONLY answer to keeping up to date your previous and existing knowledge especially when you ALREADY have a degree. Its just a cash grab nothing else and I wont be paying nor will many thousand of others. FASEA will leave a trail of destruction behind them that nobody will be able to fix once its all too late.
An adviser led class action is the only way to make these people listen. They have over-stepped their mandate and the spirit of the legislation.
Haha! I’m currently 3 months behind doing my CPD continuing education points. Somehow I’m finding it extremely hard to get motivated enough to complete them with all this absolute nonsense FASEA/FPA and now SANDERS and DeGori abject CR*P that’s being espoused ad nauseum. Makes me think they believe Kaplan CPD points are not worth having! Maybe the Royal Commission will find me and help me understand what’s important in this rabbit warren malaise I find myself in thanks to ASIC, FPA & FASEA. They ALL should be ashamed and disgusted with themselves for the sham that has developed in our once-great industry. Unforgivable dereliction of pledged duty.
We also need clarification from Dr Saunders on what happens in 10 years time, given this is the arbitrary time cut off that they have decided on. Say we all complete the required Masters degree at a cost to us (revenue to the uni’s) of $20,000. In 10 years time, under the current logic (or lack of it), these Masters degrees will be worthless. What then?
we keep on getting newer and more degrees, we never finish studying, we are always studying as if we will live forever constantly extending and refining our knowledge, until the day we stop practice continually striving for and gaining more knowledge, living the life of a shokunin and becoming a master craftsman in the service of the public, incidentally also making a nice living but in the interest of the public first then as a means to a livelihood, second.
then we become, and can call ourselves professionals of the highest order.
If education is a continuous idea… why do Universities issue degrees that say ‘you’ve graduated’? The whole point of FASEA is that advisers need to have [i]completed [/i]their qualifications. Can you complete something that is continuous? Where is the end of a circle? If education is continuous, how can anyone ever be educated?
That last question might explain a lot.
A rare public appearance Dean made and didn’t take any questions from the floor. Thats because he know he will get pumbeled by the planners. Dean also stated that “qualifications are of their time” to true that why we have 40 CPD points to do every year to keep us relevant. Gees what is happening to the world?
Corporations Act 1989 came into force 1991. Repealed by the Corporations Act 2001.
Hey, if super interested, I found out what happened in 1995! That was the year of inception of the AQF. Nuthin to do with Corps Law developments whatsoever.
GO IMMEDIATELY TO YOU FEDERAL MP and be very loud and clear that FASEA and ODwyer need to change !!!!
The more weasel words these FASEA and Academics spin the worse it looks for any sanity.
DR. Sanders should IMMEDIATELY remove his Dr. title as it is more than 10 years old.
What a bonehead comment….
What a bizarre “clarification”. If true, it implies that Sanders has completely lost the plot. Can any planners who were there confirm if this is an accurate and representative report of what he said?
Killian Plastow – it doesn’t seem FASEA have clarified the 10 year rule at all – please stop the sensational news headlines and apply some common sense – all it has done is highlight the level of or lack of understanding by those in charge and further frustrate and alienate a huge portion of more than qualified, capable advisers who are rapidly switching off to an incompetent group who have no idea on how to professionalise an industry. Ongoing CPD of over a 100 hours a year in some form has to be of value – so recognise it and let us move forward and maybe see some clients and do what we are best at?
Sanders should be disqualified from his job immediately. He should go back to school as he finished school 50 years ago.
I do agree with most of the comments here about how ridiculous it is that people who have relevant degrees may need to redo them…However, all this talk about the current CPD we do…. Nobody actually thinks that CPD is worth something do they? I do my ’40 hours’ in an hour on Kaplan ontrack without opening the articles. Its a joke.
Open book tests with the ability to retake failed ones do not in any circumstances confirm technical ability.
so true. I do 40 hours in 30 minutes. it’s a joke. this year i’ve clocked up nearly 100 hours ha ha
at least we don’t pass around answers like the boys at mac bank
but too be fair i do have a lot of knowledge after 17 years and can easily guess the right answer
I suspect this is an exaggeration, but if true I don’t really have a problem with it. If you can pass the tests without reading the articles it tells me you have a very good level of knowledge and you are keeping up with new developments. After all, isn’t that the point of CPD?
No exaggeration, most of the quizzes are barely knowledge based. Just reading comprehension but you dont really even need to read the articles themselves to be able to guess the answers on what would be most appropriate. It is not, in the slightest, a confirmation of knowledge.
I call BS
So do I since many of the questions start of by saying “In the article Mr / Mrs X suggested that……….. a) b) c) or d) which you cannot answer unless you’ve read the article. Is your paraplanner doing your CPD?
You just don’t pick those ones and pick the quizzes that are going to be based on technical knowledge although you arent penalised if you get the reading comprehension ones wrong anyways, you simply ‘retry’ or you move onto the next one. Your head is in the sand if you think they are worth a pinch of salt, someone with no industry experience could easily nail 40 hours of ‘ontrack’ in very little time if they can read.
You only do the CPD without opening articles because you have the knowledge… that is the whole point of knowledge. you have to use that knowledge with clients. If you are deficient, then the CPD will require reading and the uptake of knowledge. comprende?
[i]Open book tests with the ability to retake failed ones do not in any circumstances confirm technical ability. [/i] You do know that, that is what a University course is like now.
Deen, I noticed that you call yourself Dr Saunders. Could you please advise when you completed your qualifications. If it is older than 10 years could you immediately remove the Dr designation and commence new studies as you previous ones would no doubt be stale.
“Education is a continuous idea”. So profound! Yet, Dr Sanders, FASEA’s interpretation is so narrow-minded!
How can CFP, CPD and professional experience count for nought (nada!, zero!) under the current FASEA proposal? And older degrees count for so little!
FASEA expect us to ‘repeat’ things we already now! I’d much prefer to further my studies in a specialisation of my choosing, not some brain-dead generic revision!!!!!
Has our industry just been sitting on its hands as the Government tweaks their Federal Budget every year; as Central Banks have been printing fiat since the GFC; as Australians all get older and more enter into Residential Aged Care; or as we implementation Best Interests Duty waayyy before the Banks did? (See how one of the Big 4 has already been pinged on the last one by the Royal Commission, due to the practices of their “General Advice” call centre – not their FP division!)
Let’s be clear FASEA – it is we who are ahead, and you who are behind! You have a LOT OF CATCHUP to do!
Modern medicine has advanced dramatically over the past 30 years, has anyone told a Doctor to go back to university to update this degree qualifications.
Dr Sanders must only have 2 years remaining on the PHD that he looks to have completed in 2010…..I assume he will need to complete another in the next 2 years….Just another example of an academic with a questionable conflicted view pushing education for the simple purpose of additional revenue for the various educational institutions. Structured CPD adds greater value than repeating or completing a degree that often is not specific and targeted to the daily roles advisers perform.
Pretty sure doctorates get stale, maybe Dr Sanders should go resit this.
all knowledge gets outdated.
if u were at the conference you would’ve heard Sanders (whose background was in psychology) acknowledge that if he wanted to go back to practice that he’d have to upskill to get re-accreditation
He hasn’t really clarified anything. I am expecting some clear and concise guidelines as to what additional study I need to do to be issued about mid 2023 based upon their current efforts.
How can we get the Minister to actually listen (or read) to those directly affected by the lunacy of this education standard? Only she can actually change this. No other body or individual has the capacity to change the legislation. The FPA etc are eunuchs in this debate having accepted the idea in the first place and now want to change their position slightly. We, as a body of voters, need to directly lobby the Minister. I have written to her twice and received a standard reply… ie I don’t believe she read it and more likely a staffer responded. If her office was inundated with letters (not emails) registered mail with signature required, we might actually get heard. Imagine 10000 registered letters landing on her desk? All individually signed for? That is 10,000 votes that her party wont get. So, to make it even more powerful, the same goes to the Prime Minister who is not exactly on a winning streak. I believe pollies are only briefed by the “Sir Humphrey’s” of this world (Yes Minister) who are very selective and biased to protect public service jobs… more bureaucracy means more public servants. SO I CHALLENGE E#VERYONE WHO READS THIS….. write a letter, send Registered Mail with signature required, to the Minister O’Dwyer and Prime Minister Turnbull. Do it this week, please. That way, it will have maximum impact on Monday when the deluge hits her desk. Thankyou.
I don’t see any problem with the legislation. I just see a huge problem with FASEA abusing the power they have been given to impose requirements on planners that are well beyond community expectations.
O’Dwyer can’t and won’t change the legislation. But she can and should haul FASEA over the coals, and sack the lot of them if they don’t quickly align with the intent of the legislation.
Why not put all the words to the test. I’ll back my 50 years Industry experience, skills and knowledge against any so called “qualified person” in our Industry. This is a disgrace and I’m sorry to say that the organisations representing the advisers have performed very poorly once again. How can experience and continuing development count for nothing?
I don’t see how this clarifies anything!
I wonder what car Mr Sanders drives? Is it still the same car he got his licence on? Oh it must be since he, like us all, have never taken a second driving test since obtaining our licence. But it’s still completely fine for me to put my kids and friends kids in the car and drive 100kmh down the freeway. Because surely since my study of road rules is now 30 years ago, I could not possibly understand new cars or new road rules.
Yet more absolute stupidity from people who only have a job to create more stupidity to ensure they have a job!!!!!!!!!
Excellent analogy
“Education is a continuous idea” hey, Dean? What are CPD points then? I’d be interested to see what other professional have asked members to go an get another degree to re-learn what they already learnt.
There are advisers out there with degrees, masters degrees, 8 subject DFP and 4 subject CFP course who will need to start from scratch. I wouldn’t call that continuous learning, Deen, I’d call that repetitive.
Make no mistake – this is all about channeling people into fee paying courses.
I think he is implying that his PHD (I have assumed the Dr in the final paragraph relates to a PHD) is worthless once it is 10 years old.
Sanders should be sacked immediately. His comments are totally bizarre. No other profession is forced back to university on a regular basis because their degree is ‘stale’. That’s what CPD is for.
Fancy telling a doctor of 30 years that his qualification is no longer relevant. Life experience and on the job experience counts for far more than book learning anyway. What happened to the idea of CPD points to keep our knowledge relevant. The world changes we learn more things. Govt policies change and anything we learnt about super and centrelink 10 years ago is incredibly outdated. But how does that matter, we keep up to date with what is changing in our field of influence. No amount of education is going to change the ethics of people that want to line their own pockets at the expense of the people they are dealing with. The only thing that would fix this is better salaries and making bonuses an insignificant part of your income and people will surely focus on the client. Bring our industry into the professional arena and stop trying to make our job ‘about the next sale.’
Well said . ..this whole thing cries of bureaucrats and academics being given too much control and typically out of touch. Clients will be the big losers in all this as their long term and trusted adviser is forced out of the industry even though they have done everything asked of them from an initial qualification and ongoing CPD over 20 plus years..not to mention the life and job experience Overit highlights above!
As a salaried adviser, I could not agree more. Pay me like the degree qualified and experienced professional which I am, and reduce the bonuses which make up a disproportionate amount of my income. While I personally have never compromised my ethics, or the best interests of a client, for the sake of ‘getting a deal’, I have experienced intense pressure from management and have witnessed colleagues succumb due to fear for their jobs (more so than personal greed – although sadly I’ve seen that too). Education is not going to fix ethics as there’s a broader problem in the industry which starts with vertical integration. Let’s target that white elephant, and not advisers who are simply trying to do the best by their clients and make a living at the same time.
That is why you maintain Professional development! These people are already displaying their bias and conflicted interests not to mention total incompetence….. medical technology changes more frequently but we don’t see doctors having to compete another degree once they have been qualified over 10 years ….. for God’s sake can some common sense ever be applied in this industry…
More FASEA rubbish, still without real clarification.
So Deen, tell me any other industry like Accountnats, Lawyers, Engineers, Drs, etc that have quality degrees before 1995 or older than 10 years and worked continuously in their industry plus done annual CPD to keep up to date with changes and are being forced back to University to redo degrees.
Wake the hell up FASEA, your position is absurd and will not be accepted by well educated and well experienced advisers.
Agree that continuous education is important. Gosh i wonder how my doctor is going to respond when he realises that his 25 year old medical degree doesn’t cut it anymore. Oh and i’m pretty sure that doctor had a wonderful time in Bali thanks to the support he’s shown Pfizer over the last 12 months, but dammit i can’t recall ever receiving any documentation from him advising how he was being remunerated. I must have misplaced it. Or even in fact whether he had considered adequate alternative forms of treatment or even forms of medication.
Anyway, i’d best go – i’ve got to cancel an appointment i have with an architect this afternoon. I noticed the certicicate on his wall said he got his quals in 1990 so i can only assume he’s really crap now at what he does.
Deen Sanders says that Education is a “Continuous idea”.
YES!!! That’s why we have mandatory standards for Professional Development and Continuing Education.
Someone who has continuously met those requirements should be deemed to still have current qualifications.
Doctors and Accountants operate in a similar way to keep current. They are not forced into doing additional tertiary degrees.
They are not living in the real world. I say to them, get “real” quickly before all the experienced planners retire early and that leaves the industry with a serious loss of experience and mentoring capacity.
22000 of 25000 advisers are in an unclear pathway right now.
Mr Sanders is blowing up the industry with the statements he is making, in my opinion.
I am indeed offended as FASEA has conveniently left out ‘experience’ that gets added to ‘older’ degrees. Same with Kaplan who only accepts 5 year old degrees.
If u bothered to read the legislation and the other releases and not just what’s reported in the press, u would see that FASEA didnt leave it out, the parliament deliberately said that designations (such as CFP) and experience arent enough on their own. Its not FASEA, Sanders, Brimble making this up, its in the law they have been tasked with implementing. All the comments on here are like going and yelling at the checkout chick becoz Coles under pay farmers for their milk.
Then the law is an arse!
An 11 year old degree, in my case a Masters, might have contained older irrelevant material however this knowledge has been built upon by continuing education within the industry to update to new policies and maintain CPD.