Senate economic references committee member Amanda Stoker asked the authority a number of questions on notice around recognition of prior experience for advice industry veterans within the education standards, suggesting FASEA had misled the committee around the extent of additional study required for older advisers.
“In your opening statement to the Senate estimates hearing on 27 October, you said ‘of those advisers with over 30 years’ experience, only 500 (2 per cent of the FAR) will be required to undertake eight units of study by the end of 2025.
“Given that only around 1,300 advisers on the FAR have been advisers for over 30 years, it is actually 38 per cent of this group who need to do the full graduate diploma, and this ignores the more than 7,000 advisers who have left the profession over the last 22 months in the face of FASEA’s heavy-handed approach,” Senator Stoker said.
“Will you correct the record to provide a more accurate, meaningful and contextual statistic?”
In response, the authority said that as there were around 22,000 total advisers on ASIC’s adviser register, the authority considered that its data “presents an accurate representation of the size of this group as a proportion of total advisers”.
Meanwhile, Ms Stoker also grilled FASEA on its graduate diploma requirement for existing advisers, which was the same as that for new entrants changing careers into the industry with no previous advice experience.
“You have previously said that existing advisers get a two-thirds discount on the full degree requirement for new advisers, as FASEA only require them to do an eight-subject graduate diploma,” she said.
“Is it true to say that the graduate diploma is an option available to new entrants to the profession who are career changers, with no financial advice experience?
“If the answer is yes, and the same option is available to people with no financial advice experience, in what way does this approach recognise the relevant experience of long-practising existing advisers?”
FASEA said the graduate diploma pathway was available to career changers who “demonstrate they have an AQF7 or AQF8 level qualification, or a combination of relevant experience and academic capability judged to be equivalent”.
“New entrants would typically not have the minimum relevant experience required and would generally need to complete a FASEA approved AQF7 (bachelor) qualification,” the authority said.
“Conversely, existing advisers are approved for entry to a postgraduate pathway regardless of tertiary qualifications, work experience, equivalent learning or education providers’ postgraduate entry policy for non-relevant providers.”
FASEA said existing advisers could also gain credit for non-degree qualifications such as advanced diplomas and industry certifications.
“..and this ignores the more than 7,000 advisers who have left the profession over the last 22 months in the face of FASEA’s heavy-handed approach”. Well no, people are leaving because of the regulation of the industry and because it is simply not a financially viable business to be in unless you are exclusively dealing with the top 5% of wealth. There just isn’t much incentive for people to go through FASEA requirements. That is all down to the Government.
Policies and procedures made up on the fly. The list of relevant degrees was being updated well after the date new entrants were required to complete a Professional Year. Education institutions were at a loss as to whether their existing courses met standards or required change. The whole education requirement was a complete overreaction by a government that wanted to bow to the public, rather than consider and put in place proper processes to ensure the raising of standards.
Not just long-term advisers have suffered, but all advisers and those wanting to enter the industry (why would you?). And ultimately the customer will suffer, which is everyday Australians that were supposed to benefit yet due to ridiculous changes can’t even access advice anymore due to affordability and businesses exiting this space.
The exodus will continue and even with changes now, it is too late.
I have counselled a number of youngsters that want to be advisers – my words of wisdom are simple – why? Go into law or accounting; I still love what I do and have done for 30 years now, but as mentioned earlier, it’s not fun anymore; stopped being so about 10 years ago. I simply need to stay on. We are now more-than-ever keeping abreast of the mountains of red-tape than what clients needs us to be – their counsel. The ‘scaled advice’ discussion is simple, and i cant understand why all the brainiacs keep going around in circles – the compliance regime is not set up to allow it anymore because of the need to be able to predict the future accurately for the client, because 5 years hence, when the prediction is fogged up, the big brother overseers can go into the time tunnel (1960’s-style) and pinpoint the failure and persecute the adviser…..why should anyone need to live with Damocles sword waiting to fall
Where are new entrants supposed to find a willing practise for their Professional Year? What practise will be happy with taking a chance in training and mentoring an employee who doesn’t have any “earning capacity” for the firm?
Professional Planner published an article about this predicament just last week.
Let’s remember FASEA consulted with the industry. The FPA “gifted them their FPEC” approved University courses with the recommendation that prior learning be worth 20 points out of 100. They clearly consulted and followed industry recommendations.
Surely we’re not still talking about education standards which are now crystal clear, set in stone and pretty much completed by any adviser who’s serious about their future? Are the requirements fair, reasonable, etc, etc – not relevant, they are what they are, its too late now to change them and whining won’t achieve anything.
All this whining about something that just ‘is’ is now getting tiresome.
Get on with your study or move on with your life away from this profession.
I find it amusing anyone thinks that “30 years experience” in the advice industry is worth anything. It generally struggles to cover 10% of the fundamental knowledge in the newly required undergrad and post grad degrees.
I understand the education requirements as we want to be professional. However this exam still irks me. If you don’t pass by the end of the year then you can’t advise. Never seen this approach before. I’ve had arguments that doctors and lawyers have to do this sort of thing before they can practice which is understandable, but they weren’t practising before having to do the exam like many of us. New entrants should do the exam…yes…but not already practising advisers. Part of the ethics course has an ethics exam which I feel is enough. The amount of stress (plus the cost!!) is totally out of whack. FASEA (govt) will make a minimum of $15,000,000 alone just from this but they can’t get their monitoring systems in check.
SENATOR STOKER…….I have worked in Financial Services for 41 years and am aged 58. I have been a self employed Adviser 18 years with zero complaints lodged against me. I have Bachelors Degrees in Accounting and Commercial Law, Diploma of Finance, Diploma of Financial Planning. FASEA deemed that I am not educated enough ??? FASEA say I must complete 4 bridging units plus the FASEA Exam to retain my licence past 31/12/25. I don’t have issue with the FASEA exam but will NOT complete the bridging units costing $12K – $15K. I will therefore exit the profession on 31/12/25, some 7 years before I’d intended. The sad thing is that I am but one of many who will do the same.
Have two degrees from 1970 onward, Public Accountant for 30yrs , Financial Planner for 20yrs and no one has question my honesty , integrity and ethics over my working life but I am finishing up thanks to Fasea, while CEO’ s of major banks and financial groups just keep collecting their big pay checks and bonuses .
I just called Amanda Stoker’s office in Brisbane to say “Thank You” and they were not aware of this article but were grateful for my call. HIGHLY RECOMMEND everyone call her Brisbane office and say thanks!! Google her and it is easy to find the number
Too little, too late. Authorised Rep numbers already down by 20% (25,000 to 20,000), and more to come. Likely settle at 15,000-17,000.
In terms of Financial Advser numbers, headlibe figures are misleading because they includes Risk Specialists, Stockbrokers, etc. So also unclear on impacts in specialised areas.
A total mess. Frustrated population will eventually turn directly to politicians for answers to their financial predicaments. Grab the popcorn.
I can tell you now….as one of FASEA’s 2% (which is fanciful) and a Risk ONLY adviser with 15 years experience, I won’t be wasting 1000-1200 hours and something between $10,000 – $15,000 doing 8 courses to remain in this industry past 2026.
Firstly, I strongly suspect 5 of those 8 units / courses aren’t even relevant to what I do and wish to continue doing for my clients. I’m a father with two teenagers, I’m a husband, a sports coach and a risk insurance adviser trying to keep his head above water and on top of all the other obligations we have. This doesn’t give me time much time personally to recharge.
Our income has been drastically reduced over the last five years but our compliance and admin obligations have been doubled even tripled and the scrutiny we face on a daily basis is unparalleled with any other industry.
What FASEA are foolishly and naïvely expecting advisers to do is the very reason why there’s been such an exodus of good quality and experienced advisers over the last few years and why that exodus will continue. This is just a money grab and everyone in the industry knows it so I’m really pleased that this Parliamentary Committee is holding them them to account for what they have done to this industry.
It seems that FASEA have cherry-picked the figures to suit their narative. How many Advisers are there who have been doing our jobs for 10 to 20 years? 20 to 30 years? Pickeing the oldest cohort as an example of their “light touch” is misleading and deceptive – it could be almost described as dishonest, it certainly shows a lack of diligence and integrity, and were they Advisers would be guilty of breaches of the undelying values of the Code, and by extension Standard 1. Tsk tsk.
FASEA = heavily conflicted. Certain select Universities are a clear winner, and that conflict of interest section in the Code is pretty hypocritical.
Not just universities. The hypocritical “Ethics Centre” and their textbook writing CEO are probably the biggest winners of all.
So for the last 3 or so years we’ve been hammered with the impression that education is much more important than experience and now far too late in the process the people who threw all this at us begin to see the light. Less planners, less membership fees for the so called “professional bodies”, less gst, less insurance diminishing the pool and increasing premiums, etc. Gee….maybe this wasn’t all that well thought out after all.
All very good questions Amanda Stoker.
Can I also suggest you ask why no Recognition for Prior Learning was given for any ethics training advisers have done previously, and all advisers were forced to complete an ethics bridging subject. FASEA’s stock answer that “the FASEA Code is new so everyone has to study it” is a complete furphy, as everyone has to study the FASEA Code independently anyway to pass the FASEA exam. And the FASEA Code will be constantly changing anyway. There is absolutely no need for a compulsory bridging subject in ethics for advisers with prior ethics training.
When you combine this indefensible decision, with the presence of an ethics course provider and textbook writer on the FASEA Board who will profit from the decision, that smells of corruption. Dig deeper Amanda.
This is s great point re this ethics bridging course. The fasea ethics course itself did not have any new material in it, it was a cobbled together piece of crap that read like it was sourced from other studies and articles, some even that were 30 to 40 years old from american universities. There was NO new material in that course, no ORIGIONAL material that was different to the CPD ethics subjects we have been doing for years! It was a massive rip off doing this course, and whoever wrote it ( or cut and pasted the material from other real studies) should be ashamed to present this cobbled together piece of crap to us professionals.
Your comment is plain wrong. I know fellow advisers who have been granted RPL for Ethics modules completed in Degree or Post-Grad quals in the 1-3 years prior to the FASEA code coming into force.
You imply that these Board members have only approved courses & degrees from there respective organisations, when that is so far from the truth.
Bram Stoker only needs to dig back to the legislation that her party implemented to see why we are were we are.
No-one has ever implied Board members only approved courses from their own specific organisations. That would be too obviously corrupt. But forcing people to do unnecessary courses of which their organisation is one of the major suppliers, is still a corrupt path to profits. And when you also profit from textbooks that other other organisations use in their courses… ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching!
Why only 1-3 years? Does ethical theory become redundant after 3 years? Will all advisers have to do another expensive bridging course every 3 years? Will they have to do it again every time there is a change to the FASEA Code or Guidance? A few lucky people will make a lot of extra money as a result of these ridiculous rules. Some of whom are FASEA Board members.
a bit late now
Well, I think I understood at least some of what I just read . . . and ‘some’ of the ramifications. I’ve been in the industry for 35 years now and, a decade ago thought about the early 2030s would be my retirement year. I’m out this year, sadly, as it is no longer enjoyable or fun and I always said that would be the time I’d leave -0 when it wasn’t fun anymore. Hasn’t been fun for at LEAST 5 years with this bureaucracy, [b]FARCE-IA [/b][b][/b]and extra red tape and unnecessary educational degrees for simple risk writers like myself. Such a shame – I loved this once-great industry but it is now replete with the [b]whims and idiocy of regulators and self-interest of politicians[/b][b][/b].
.
I thought once that if sanity prevailed and a [b]separate qualification existed for risk writers[/b][b][/b] [i](as it is a separate discipline and knowledge bank),[/i][i][/i] something even a ‘bit’ more relevant than these ridiculous over-the-top AQF standards oif overkill, I might give it a go and stay, for my clients and my sanity. I won’t be staying though, I can’t handle the absolute idiocy anymore. Our industry is ruined and with 4 hours min needed in admin now for 1 hour with a client I’m out – it is just beyond reason now. I’m only 60 so at least a bit young and should enjoy retirement Cheers all.
I wish you well sir….and please chock the door on your way out. I sense many more will be following you.
If they tried to do this to any other profession everyone would be up in arms
If they were doing this to any other profession, we’d be as oblivious to that as they all are to our plight at the moment. Don’t kid yourself, if Lawyers or anyone else was going through this,. we wouldn’t know or care either.
The whole education requirement is crap. I have been an adviser since1999 and O am leaving
Amanda Stoker does realise that the FASEA legislation was proposed & passed by the LNP doesnt she?
When the government sets out the requirements and time table in the legislation it provides little wriggle room for the Board & Executive at FASEA to change things. It was the government that set the “Relevant Degree or equivalent”. Maybe she should go & ask Scott Morrison – who was treasurer at the time – what he was thinking…
BLAME KELLY O’DWYER!!!! Complete idiot.
The FASEA legislation provided considerable discretion for the FASEA Board & management to implement things as they saw fit. Unfortunately they saw fit to act in a biased and corrupt manner, rather than to act responsibly in the spirit of the legislation. Hume has effectively sacked these low lifes, but with a very long notice period. Stoker is trying to force them to clean up some of their mess before they go.
SlowMo was never the sharpest tool in the shed and this is yet another example of it
More of the same BS and spin we have come to expect from FASEA. Is it any wonder the Government felt they had no choice but to wind up this pathetic organisation. Confusion, frustration and uncertainty – that is the legacy FASEA will leave behind.
AQF Level 7 – Bachelor Degree / Level 8 – Bachelor Honours Degree,Graduate Certificate, Graduate Diploma
FASEA’s answer is not very clear but if you take that statement literally that if you have a Financial Planning Graduate Certificate, you can then enter the qualification process, i.e. the difference between a Graduate Certificate and Graduate Diploma (4 units).
THANK YOU, SENATOR AMANDA STOKER YOU’RE A LEGEND!!!!
FASEA are lying. I have 30 years experience at age 54 and need the full eight units. I knew heaps of advisers in the same boat but most have now retired early or quit as advisers.
Well to me that says all you have is the most basic quals to be a planner. If you have the Adv Dip FP you can get 2 credits, if you had done coursework to get the FPA’s CFP or AFA’s FchFP you could get up to 2. So 30 yrs and all you’ve done is the bare minimum. The bar to entry has been way too low for way too long….
agree….why didn’t you upgrade in the past 30 years?
Amanda Stoker is from the same government that brought this legislation into being.