In a statement on its website, FASEA issued a rare update to its proposed guidance on education pathways, clarifying that all advisers with a bachelor’s degree in a “related field” (including accounting, financial planning or advice, business, commerce, law or economics) will need to complete a bridging course of three study units.
Additionally, advisers with a degree and postgraduate studies in a related field will still need to complete a one-unit bridging course covering the new code of ethics created by FASEA.
The statement also specified that all advisers with one of these degrees will be eligible to complete a bridging course regardless of when the degree was obtained, adding that FASEA is working with higher education providers to “develop an approval process for bridging course offerings, with the aim of having several options available for advisers by the commencement of the 2019 academic year”.
“This will allow a full five years to complete any necessary courses before the 2024 deadline,” the statement said.
Interested parties can review the full guidance for education pathways and make submissions here, and read the draft code of ethics and make submissions here.
The full statement on the FASEA website can be read below:
The Standards Authority is today releasing proposed guidance on degree equivalence for existing advisers, as well as a draft Code of Ethics. The degree equivalence proposal clarifies the proposed educational pathways for advisers seeking to meet the new standards.
Advisers with a bachelor’s degree in a related field (accounting, financial planning or advice, business, commerce, law or economics) will need to complete a bridging course of three study units to meet these standards. This equates to less than one year of study if taken part-time.
Advisers with a bachelor’s degree and a postgraduate qualification in a related field will only need to complete a one-unit bridging course covering the FASEA Code of Ethics.
All advisers with these types of degrees will be eligible for the relevant bridging course option, regardless of when they obtained their degree.
The Standards Authority is working with higher education providers to develop an approval process for bridging course offerings, with the aim of having several options available for advisers by the commencement of the 2019 academic year.
This will allow a full five years to complete any necessary courses before the 2024 deadline.
Draft Code of Ethics
The Code of Ethics establishes core values to guide ethical behaviour, client care, quality of process and professional commitment amongst advisers.
The Standards Authority seeks feedback to the draft Code, particularly regarding the question of how advisers may be appropriately rewarded for their work while balancing consumer protection.
Clarity of Standards
The Standards Authority has sought to provide improved clarity to its draft standards and their delivery. The draft standards are streamlined and easier to navigate.
The standards also include a graphic providing an overview of the approach, as well as a summary of key terms and frequently asked questions.
The Standards Authority website has also been upgraded to provide more concise information, and provide ease of access to stakeholders to submit feedback relating to each standard.
For further detail on the new equivalence standard and code of ethics, see our full guidance release here: Standards
“We would stress that this guidance is still in the consultation phase – the Standards Authority very much welcomes your views on the practical implications of the standards,” FASEA CEO Deen Sanders said.
Apparently the 3 proposed bridging subjects relate to Ethics, Behavioural Finance and Corporations Act.
If you have DFP and ADFP but no degree how does this count towards the AQF8? Is it still 8 subjects or less? In the words of Pauline Hanson “please explain”?
A staff member asked me the same question. As it stands now, the easiest pathway (ADFP) appears to be a Graduate Diploma (8 units) with possibility for credits for RPL and professional designation programs. I am hoping those holding the latter (i.e. CFP, CPA, CA, CFA, etc.) , the number of required units will be substantially reduced.
Whilst not what she wanted to hear, but far better than the need to do a whole degree (24 units).
If the staff member was asking about you an existing adviser, than yep it’s a Graduate Diploma but if she was inquiring about her own career and has a DFP/ADFP and she’s not on the ASIC register by 2019 than it’s the whole Degree. How do advisers feel about FASEA and the careers plans of their support staff? i.e what’s the Commerce Graduate going to say when you tell her it’s most likely another 12 units?
I will now renew my membership with a f a now that hakes has gone should have left last year
I may have missed something. Whilst I have a FASEA related Bachelor degree, a FPEC approved Masters degree and completed CFP Ethics, I will also need to undertake the 1 unit FASEA Ethics course.
This means we all will have exactly the same exposure to Ethics training. Isn’t this a good thing? Moreover, probably all what is needed.
Well I’ll give them one thing. At least they have finally recognized that people with existing degrees in “related disciplines” have not actually completely wasted their time. But it took a hell of a lot of kicking and screaming to get it through their heads. No thanks to any of our so called “professional” bodies. irrelevant bodies more like it.
If I obtain a Masters in FP post 1 Jan 2019, will I be able to become a financial adviser (new entrant)? I have an ADFP but NO degree.
Not sure but you will have to do a professional development year.
Are you going to be listed on the ASIC Adviser register as at the 1st of January 2019?. i.e an authorised rep of an AFSL working as a planner. If you are, then you’ll be an existing adviser and have until 1 Jan 2024 to complete your Masters or have degree equivalent status etc. If not on the adviser register and No degree majoring in financial planning, then No you won’t be able to be licensed. Hope that helps. That might mean making a career change & getting into the industry prior to 1 Jan 2019… or finishing your degree and working in the backoffice and not in a face to face role until you graduate.
Thank you for the reply.
I won’t be an adviser before 1 Jan 2019. If i understand correctly, even with a Masters (AQF 9) I won’t be able to be licensed as a planner post 2019? Which will therefore mean I will need to do further studies and get a degree (AQF7) to become licensed as a new entrant post 2019.
If that’s the case, best I start making another plan.
You will not need to get a degree – the Masters is a higher level qualification – however, even with a Masters you will need to do the FASEA Ethics subject. If you are new to the industry after 1 January 2019, you will need to finish your Masters first to even get a toe in the door, then you will need to complete a professional year.
Dear Confused, Also Anon summed it up nicely. You’ve got the ticket to the game, with the Masters (well done congratulations) although you’ll most likely need, like everyone to do an Ethics course which should be a walk in the park for you (although a wasted walk). Now you won’t be able to perform open heart surgery alone on Day 1 but by day 365 you’ll be slicing and dicing, my friend. Myself I spent about 2 years as a paraplanner working under an adviser, then I moved into a junior adviser role and did paraplanning and a bit of advice. After a few years I got chucked in the deep end.
It seems like FASEA has largely dismissed the value of the CFP course. Makes you wonder what happened to Deen Sanders in the later part of his time at the FPA, for him to now be so dismissive of something he used to enthusiastically promote as the “highest standard in financial planning”.
I’d assume his concern is not so much with CFP designation but the thousands of advisers who were grandfathered it that only had a diploma and a shoddy record of CPD to accompany it.It has sullied the prospects of those planners who actually completed the full course receiving any dispensations.
Yep, grandfathered CFPs have certainly devalued the designation and eroded the FPA’s credibility.
Nonetheless, as a former FPA employee Sanders would be acutely aware of the difference between graduates of the Masters level CFP course, and grandfathered CFPs who have completed minimal education. For some reason Sanders has decided to punish graduates of the CFP course. He must hold a very deep grudge against the FPA.
FASEA’s mandate was to bring all advisers up to a minimum degree. Now I will be forced to complete 360 hours of study, even though I have a MASTERS DEGREE in FINANCIAL PLANNING. This is so crazy I am lost for words. I am seriously thinking about walking away.
Hang on.. you’ll only have to do “one unit” estimated to take 10 hours a week for 12 weeks. A small price to pay for someone like yourself to ensure that everyone is up to speed. A few weeks ago you were looking at doing a complete Graduate Diploma. I’m sure you wouldn’t even need to study it.
Yeah, I don’t think “Useless” actually read the announcement – so it’s a good nom de plume. He/she would rather write that rant apparently. You’re correct. For anyone with a relevant Masters they have only one subject to do.
Rather than trolling advisers who have genuine concerns, try reading the document yourself before spreading nonsense. There is no such thing as a ‘relevant masters’. Since you are incapable of deciphering the document, I have cut and pasted the words relevant to my situation right here for you:
[i][/i]An Existing Adviser – I have a degree (AQF 7 or above) and it is in a RELATED field of study: Bridging Course, AQF, made up of 3 course[i][/i]
Useless – is this because your Masters in Financial Planning is not on the FPEC list? Did you contact your uni about getting it retrospectively accredited? If it becomes accredited you only do 1 subject. I agree they didn’t specifically cover unrelated undergrad +related post grad, or no undergrad+related postgrad, but I’d expect you’d fall in the 1 subject only camp with a related but not approved post grad (be good to see this clarified by them too).
Rather than giving me a lecture re the time involved, maybe your time would be better spent reading the guidance. I have TWO postgraduate qualifications, so I know exactly how disruptive this will be for my business and my family thank you.
The ‘one unit’ option is only relevant for those with an [b]undergraduate[/b] degree [b]AND[/b] a [b]relevant post graduate degree[/b]. There will be large numbers of advisers who fall outside of this criteria, just like myself. There is nothing to be gained by sending financial planners, who already have a master degree in financial planning, back to study. This is just a transfer of money out of my pocket into university coffers and the time I spend away from my business will probably result in a cut back to the service I can offer my clients.
A few weeks ago you were staring down the barrel of doing a whole new Graduate Diploma. There are plenty of advisers out there with degrees and diplomas who are now breathing a massive sigh of relief. Three Units is nothing buddy. I’ve a list of post graduate courses but even I’ve had to do gearing courses, ASX courses, then i had to do a SMSF course and so it’s never ending. 3 courses over the next 6 years in return for hopefully less regulation and avoiding being called or compared to a Cowboy car salesman is a walk in the park. Could be worse you could of not studied and be totally screwed.
Well said anonymous… I didn’t enjoy the study over the last couple years but considering I plan to stay in this industry and am sick and tired of the terrible public perception (and rightly so) Its a small price to pay. We either want to be a profession or we dont.
Congratulations to the FPA for doing… wait for it….nothing.. We can thank all those who have written to their MP and the Minister. I wonder if I’ll get a refund on membership fees for doing their job. We can also thank CPA Australia for recently coming out and saying “WTF, you want our SMSF limited license uneducated accountants to do what”
if you dig deep a lot of accountants have been grandfathered, a lot of them don’t even have a first degree in accounting, let alone in financial planning
well, I for one, am happy about one thing, the CFP course and FPA membership is now totally redundant.
Not quite. Looks like the code monitoring requirement will guarantee FPA membership.
I believe, the code monitoring has to be done by someone other i.e. independent
Yes.. what a joke Arrow. Potentially being forced to join or retain membership of the FPA. An organization where it’s key business partner has recently been accused at a Royal Commission of accepting bribes. Yep that makes sense. I guess a few of the FPA directors might be the first needing to enrol in that ethics course.
With their compulsory Bachelor of Financial Planning degrees for all, I think both the FPA and the University sector just got caught with their pants down…the hands in the sugar bowl.
The only ethical thing to do is to make the additional education free, otherwise it is completely conflicted!
FASEA has now made it clearer for everyone – NO ONES degree passes without having to do extra study, even those of us who have completed an “approved” Master of FP and only recently.
Agreed that Ethics has to be something that we all do, and it is NOT part of the offering within most degrees in FP – it should be.
HOWEVER, where the problem lies is with everyone’s perception of FP – i.e. that the CFP is the ultimate achievement – which is what I believed too.
Up until now, I have seen no problem with what academics, FASEA, FPEC, FPA etc have been advocating, however, now there is a problem.
Why would anyone who is yet to obtain their CFP, bother?
Some approved courses (FPEC/FPA) offer exemptions for up to 3 of 4 of the FPA subjects – i.e. CFP 2 through 4.
Ethics – CFP 1 – there is no exemption. The FPA would need to seriously consider either incorporating this into the FASEA required curriculum, otherwise those who are NOT CFP’s, will be doing this subject TWICE, which is ridiculous.
I was going to start my CFP this year, but will likely hold off, or not do it at all now, and also reconsider staying a member, as to be honest, they haven’t done much for me.
What is the point in doing the CFP when:
CFP1 – Ethics will be part of FASEA requirements anyway
CFP 2 through 4 – maximum exemptions apply if you do the right course
CFP Certification – FASEA will require an exam, and an SOA was part of the curriculum for the course I completed, but I will need to do an FPA one as well.
The only thing missing here is supervised meetings and a record of submission on experience.
Why not just make it compulsory for ALL financial planners to become a CFP, and that way, we ALL have the same subjects, the same SoA to write, the same exam and the same standard and we don’t have to pay for everything TWICE???
I was all for the CFP designation, but this latest information put out by FASEA means It isn’t looking like it will be worth going through the CFP program – paying TWICE to do ethics, twice to do an SOA module and then paying DOUBLE for the membership compared to now.
Seriously reconsidering staying in the industry, and am only a junior adviser.
I am sure the AFP will apply to have CFP1 become an approved bridging course with the hope that people will continue to complete the CFP program so they get more money.
refer to comment above from Papa
I don’t know where to start other than to say I too was living in this FPA/CFP dreamland of professionalism for close to 20 years now. But with FoFA, Opt in, and red tape and government intervention the FPA track is ZIP. The reason for this ZIP track record is that the FPA receives funding from Commonwealth Financial Planning and bribe takers like NAB, so it’s never ever going to be an inclusive organization and therefore the CFP mark is nothing but a signal to consumers that you belong to an organization that represents the banks first and somewhere in the mix planners.
The Final kick in the pants is the way they have represented planners in this whole FASEA mess. We’ve seen nothing but self interest by the FPA. FPA members have every right to complain and call for change in their organization. FPA membership is to be frank…worthless. CFP is even more worthless or at least waste your money by giving it to charity or study a Uni qualification. Go out and study something that will add real value to your business. Go and join an organisation that has the publics interest at heart and planners. It’s not the FPA.
Ok FASEA, I was clearly under the understanding that once one has completed AQF9 standard (an approved Masters Degree in Financial Planning), then we would have only have had to sit that ridiculous exam that at this stage we do not know what the content of it will be. Now FASEA have stated that an additional subject in ethics is required to be completed by 2024. The MFP offered an ethics subject as an option. I am livid and how dare FASEA continue to test professional financial planners’ patience as this is now verging on an insult to integrity.
Agree Anton – I have just completed Bachelor FP and ethics was already a subject – irritating that I will have to do AGAIN
I hear you mate, this is going to totally and irrecoverably decimate the industry
i would say not more than a couple of thousand would qualify as it stands
About half are now ok with this announcement (subject to them doing the 1 or 3 extra subjects as outlined in the guidance). So the fate of the other half – being about 12,000 – is yet to be decided.
We now have a bunch of academics with consummate educational interests reforming an important Australian industry. Our first question should be: Who are these people? What experience do they have in our industry? What will they bring to the table – other than Chaos? Who will be responsible for their decisions and are they experienced enough in our industry to make decisions that affect trillions of dollars? We need circus masters not clowns setting the rules.
and the wheels are starting to fall off
Yeah agree. Anyone without a relevant degree will need to get motoring now!
Dean Sanders FASEA has made the cut off for consultation 29th June 2018…the six weeks leading into 30th June are the busiest period in the financial planning calendar! Was this an intentional tactic to stymie debate? or just ill conceived?
FASEA – what a joke! Who made them god?? What have they done and what are they doing….nothing really. They are the “financial adviser” standards and ethic authority – they are not the “Standards Authority”. This is just a grab for money for university fees for additional courses and to justify the existence of a failing government organisation that cannot get off the ground!!!!
Who made them God?…The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services…What have they done?…a complete and utter backflip 360 degree turn with a twist. and yes I agree one last ditch effort to make a bit of money from an ethics course.
FASEA please review the Ethical Standards that advisers have completed via their ongoing PD points over the last 20 or more years and explain in 500 words or less why your proposed Ethical Standards bridging course is necessary. Please note that the pass mark will be 80% and advisers with 20 or more years experience will evaluate your submission.
What a surprise – throw in the obligatory Ethics course. Thanks for all the study you’ve done over the years and CPD hours…but we think you still need some ethics training.