Speaking on a panel at the 18th Annual Wraps, Platforms and Masterfunds Conference in the Hunter Valley, Mr Evans talked about the disruption that the education standards process is having on his adviser network and the broader industry.
“FASEA is creating a massive problem for the industry,” Mr Evans said. “We’ve got people in tears daily about this”.
The licensee boss reflected on the case of a young female adviser and mother who “worked their way up from client support, trained themselves and got their advanced diploma, and now they’ve worked out that they’re going to have to spend another 1,000 hours to actually be able to stay in the industry”.
“It’s destroying people left, right and centre,” he said.
Mr Evans said the mental health and wellbeing of advisers, as well as their existing experience, must be taken into account.
The comments come as ASIC has announced the requirements for advisers to be considered ‘existing providers’ under the incoming professional standards, clarifying that anyone who appears on the financial adviser register between 1 January 2016 and 1 January 2019 meets the requirements.
What about the lives destroyed by poor advice given by incompetent advisers?
There have certainly been a few destroyed by already highly tertiary qualified yet incompetent and unethical advisors as well! The Royal Commission and past history has shown that to be a fact!
What about the fact that more than 50,000 were left totally disabled due to malpractice by their DEGREE qualified doctor in 1995 (when our population was 18 million people) while less than 22,475 people complained to FOS about their financial service in fy17. The catastrophizing of the problem and the over reach of the solutions has been causing extreme stress for a lot of people and none of this will prevent the crooks that often have NO qualifications and NO authorization yet still manage to scam people.
Medical mistakes: a silent epidemic in Australian hospitals
June 10, 2013
[i]Last month a judge awarded a Sydney mother $360,000 in compensation in a medical negligence case over the death of her newborn baby.
It was by no means a record pay-out, but it highlighted just how inadequate medical record keeping is in Australian hospitals.
[b]By some estimates, as many as 18,000 people die every year as a result of medical error, while 50,000 people suffer a permanent injury.[/b]
[b]But there is no systematic collection and linking treatment error data, so it is impossible to know for sure how many medical mistakes cause serious harm or death. [/b][/i]
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3778256.htm
I think what’s getting lost here is that advisers who value what they do, which is guiding their clients would be more than happy to undertake further study etc. The issue is that we have a ticking clock and a standards body that has still not finalised the requirements. Further, with what has been flagged as potentially being required in the way of bridging courses is effectively requiring many advisers to re-hash past study or what they already know. This is not a win for consumers or the advice industry as there would be no actual net benefit to the community nor safeguards against poor advice. Throw in an exam that has yet to be finalised, once again with a ticking clock and a 3 strikes and your out policy and no exam preparation or guidance materials and no wonder anxiety is high. If a workable solution, with realistic timeframes can be found then you will have the support of all advisers to up-skill so we can be recognised as a profession. I still find it laughable that some these forums talk about it being a “walk in the park” or “we have known about this for a long time” etc, despite the fact that FASEA has still not finalised requirements! You might need a reality check! Hopefully the exam does not catch those people out on a technicality as it would be a shame to lose your apparent “talent” and “excellence” from the “profession”!
Here Here!!
Finally a common sense comment that is the reality of where the great unwashed (I mean uneducated according to some) are anxious about the future.
I am more than happy to transition to a profession but please do not put a knife to my throat and say suck it up princess. With no direction and time against everyone you can’t force a industry to become a profession overnight.
They aren’t forcing it overnight, you have until 2024….
Exam will be watered down to protect the lowest common denominators just like commission being grandfathered to protect the advisers with thousands of clients they cant actually service.
Judging by what FASEA have said in private consultation forums, the exam will not substantially be ‘watered down’.
You make a lot of sense.
So many dickheads on this site
It isn’t helpful referring to yourself in that manner…
Why do you say that?
Will be one less when you disappear
Seeing the Poll on the IFA front page, makes me wonder who is saying that FASEA’s proposed exam guidance is fair, given their website refers to only the Corporations act with emphasis on chapter 7. Went to the following site to look at chapter 7, and the document is over 600 pages! As this is only a portion of the exam, I hope those selecting ‘it looks fair” are joking! http://www8.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172_4.rtf
No wonder people are anxious….
This confirms what I have long suspected, the majority of voters in these polls are [b]not[/b] financial advisers.
spot on!
and you can vote as much as you like. Try on multiple computers, maybe its really just one vote.
Completely agree Grahame. This is the most ignorant and ill conceived legislation from O’Dwyer who has absolutely no understanding of what she has done. The legislation takes no account of experience, risk specialists, older advisers or existing qualifications that are just as good as anything forced upon them now. Just lump them all together and destroy 60% of them in the process.
This will cost people livelihoods, careers and in some cases homes and mental health.
Perhaps O’Dwyer should take a parliamentary or ethics related degree to stay in her job. Lets just assume all politicians are corrupt and therefore she is the same and should re-qualify. Lets see how she would like it.
[quote=Rodney]Surely Grahame is living in the past and happy to do so. It’s embarrassing that our industry continues to want to remain uneducated and unprofessional. Time to move on Grahame.[/quote] Remain uneducated? Most advisers are being asked to fork out thousands of dollars on further education, yet won’t learn anything. How does this make sense?
I think reading this article and other’s comments I am even more certain that the likes of FASEA and O’Dwyer really do not understand how to best develop the advice industry. Like accounting (which everyone seems to refer to as a profession) there are varying levels of qualification and competency. If you need to go see Geoff the local accountant for an ITR and can only afford $250 for this help then you can and Geoff by the way does NOT have a degree, but merely a Diploma and completed enough to satisfy the min req’ts to be a tax agent. If you have an SME and need more than that then you go see maybe a CPA and if you’re a med/large corp then you probably have advice from EY or Deloitte where people with Masters in Tax law work…but see the difference? Multiple layers of advice characterised by relevant quals and experience at price points customers can afford based on need. What we will end up with in advice is everyone becoming the equivalent of a CA and as such needs to charge accordingly so kiss advice goodbye most of the public who need simple advice, and priced accordingly…it won’t be possible and who would complete full degree quals just so you charge like Geoff the local accountant does?
Who needs advice anyhow, ODwyer and Treasury are working on their CIRP where they want to lock up some or all of people’s retirement capital for life at historical low income rates of return and who even knows how they are going to be treated for estate planning.
Yet these highly complex retirement products won’t need any advice according to ODwyer and Treasury.
Only O’Dwyer & government could be so arrogant and stupid.
They’ll just Barefoot to put a paragraph in his book about it, and all is sweet!
Sorry Rodney, I think you are missing the point.
When someone enters the Law profession, they complete the required education standards and then with experience and further training, progress through to whatever level or speciality they aim for. They will not succeed in achieving any worthwhile career in Law unless they continue to grow and develop their competencies and capacities. What they don’t need to do in the normal course of events however, is reprove their academic acumen or capability by re-sitting entrance exams.
Entry into Law or Medicine (or any other profession) requires completion of degrees etc. mainly to prove a person’s competency and capability to operate in the profession. What one learns through initial study etc. is a speck compared to what one learns and the skills that are developed over many years of successful operation and further training within the profession.
I know someone who has been a financial adviser for 23 years, he has worked in various roles within finance for 22 years beforehand, he won a Commonwealth Scholarship at age 18 to attend University but personal circumstances disallowed completion of the degree. This person has built his client base from scratch, survived through all the regulatory, economic and financial market challenges of the past 23 years and has over 100 clients that are all vastly better off because they rely on his ability to be their financial adviser. This person has had his own licence since 2008 and has therefore successfully undergone stringent scrutiny by ASIC, he has a DFP (completed May 2003) and is a CFP and an AEPS. He has completed over 55 hours of CPD per year since becoming a member of the FPA in 1996 and has won industry awards that testify to the value of his contribution to his clients and the profession. He obviously holds to the highest ethical standards required to maintain his CFP status and, more importantly, his ethics and skill as an adviser are continuously confirmed by a long-standing client base.
At this stage, come 2024, FASEA will require this adviser to prove his competency as an adviser by ticking an academic box and if he doesn’t, he will be required to leave the profession.
I understand that there is probably ‘good’ intent by regulators to respond to the oversight challenges of an advice profession that was birthed out of a sales mentality. But as usual, I’m concerned that they aren’t cognisant of people like my friend above.
Is your friend’s name Ian also?
Excellent anecdote.
You’re quite right Ian, Lawyers, Doctors and Accountants, don’t need to reprove their academic acumen or capability by re-sitting entrance exams.
Having spoken personally to FASEA, I can tell you that their vision is to align the qualification bar for financial planning with Chartered Accounts – an accountant only needs a degree and a registration to hang a shingle, CA’s are the ones with Professional Years and entrance exams.
1. “reprove” means to reprimand. 2 You mean qualifications instead of “acumen” (which means good judgement). 3. It’s a good thing you didn’t speak to FASEA “impersonally”. 4. Both CA and CPA have a PY as do some other professions. Other than that, a valuable contribution.
Thank you for the assessment ESL.
Re points 1 and 2, these egregious errors arose from quoting Ian, see above.
Re point 3, personally or impersonally, I certainly spoke with them in a forthright fashion and came to the conclusion that the so-called consultation is all for show.
Re point 4, is CPA really worth including in the conversation? Should financial planners really be aspiring to be second best?? 😆
I agree totally. FASEA had a simple mandate to bring advisers up to a minimum relevant degree standard. But instead they are torturing advisers who already have relevant degrees and creating enormous uncertainty for those who need one. The exam proposal is even worse. Imagine the stress that will be caused by their 3 strikes and you’re out policy. Careers and businesses will be on the line. Those pulling the strings at FASEA should be ashamed.
[quote=Rodney]Surely Grahame is living in the past and happy to do so. It’s embarrassing that our industry continues to want to remain uneducated and unprofessional. Time to move on Grahame.[/quote]
Can you please define uneducated and unprofessional please?! There are plenty examples of advisors who may not hold degrees, but provide quality advice and service to their clients, based upon experience which I would argue can exceed education. Further there are plenty examples of educated advisors who have acted unprofessionally………
Your comments relate to ethics which is not the subject matter in this article not my comments. The article focuses on the workload required to obtain a suitable of education (not designation) which I do think is an unreasonable expectation for an industry wanting to be taken seriously.
spot on Rod. The old line ‘there are plenty of professional advisers who aren’t educated’..so what. There are plenty of doctors who are educated but unprofessional, doesn’t mean you want to see one who isn’t Educated.
This is beat up…8 subjects over 4 years is a piece of p$ss for anyone. I work FT, doing second degree with a family. Good try Graeme ahaha
and clearly you are either an employee or don’t have a very busy or successful practice!!! I have done a tertiary degree and masters over the past decade, have a young family and I am a partner in a successful practice and finding the time to juggle spending time with my kids, servicing my clients plus managing a practice was not a piece of p$ss as you would like everyone to believe…..and I also have the benefit of a team of support staff and other partners. I fully support the un-educated advisers coming up to scratch, but maybe you can clarify how going back and studying what many of us already know and do is going to improve the advice we give and deliver better outcomes to our clients. All I can see from it is a conflicted financial windfall for academia!
I agree completely. I have a Masters in FP, which I completed part-time. It took a big toll on my family and affected my work in a negative way at the time. I am glad that I completed the study as I am a better adviser today because of it. But there needs to be some compassion and understanding around the impact of these changes and the differing circumstances advisers will be dealing with during the transition. Otherwise, some good people will be harmed by this and lets not forget, these are the people trusted by their clients. These clients will be negatively affected also if FASEA don’t listen to sensible comments from people like Grahame Evans.
Numpties, I agree completely. They will pi$$ off a whole bunch of advisers in their 40’s who already have tertiary quals, and where until now industry-accepted quals (many CFP-ceritifed), but not according to FASEA.
So knock off many advisers in their 40s AND 50s/60s.
Nice work. Keep it up FASEA.
Grahame Evens is entirely correct.
However, we must also remember this has been a concentrated and ferocious attack on financial advice now for nearly a decade.The cumulative effect of relentless persecution has changed the mental well being of many people who have dedicated their career and business to doing the absolute best they can at all times by their clients and a vast majority of their clients remain loyal and highly appreciative of the service and advice they receive.
To feel like your position and self is constantly being attacked and your ethics and morals constantly questioned by the media and others on a daily basis eventually wears down the very hardiest of people.
The dedication the vast majority of advisers have toward their clients and their businesses is terribly misunderstood and there is only so much punching someone can take before throwing the towel in.
This won’t be a win for the adviser haters out there like the ISA, Choice, The Labor Party, The Consumer Action Law Centre and ASIC, this will be a tremendous loss to the general public and the consumer when the depth of experience and genuine dedicated people end up saying “enough is enough” .
I completely agree with this comment. There are numerous examples of older financial planners 60 + who will be exiting the industry and retire rather than go through the exam and education requirements.
What is being ignored are the younger financial planners with 15 – 20 plus years of experience in their 40’s with families that have to try and meet the education and exam requirements will all existing structured CPD and Diploma and Advanced Diploma qualifications being completely ignored. After years, and years of ongoing changes these planners are burnt out and see no point in continuing in an industry which will always be a soft target by politicians that do not see the benefits that Financial Planners make to their clients positions.
8 subjects of the Grad Diploma over 4 years……1 subject every 6 months on FP…..for an adviser who is serious about managing client’s life savings I simply don’t think this is an unreasonable workload.
And what about all the past education, experience & training being completely ignored as is FASEA has suddenly invested the only ever acceptable Financial Advice education.
Its not, I completed the Masters over the last 3 years. 4 subjects per year while working more than full-time hours and travelling state to state, very feasible… Doing half that should be a cakewalk… People will always find a reason to complain though.
Totally agree… and with exemptions for experience and prior learning it is more likely to be 4 or 5 subjects. Griffith run these over a 6 week block. So, 30 weeks of study max.
If we want to change the industry, we must get serious about education standards.
Just remember it takes longer to train as a hairdresser or a chef than a it does a financial planner. That cant continue.
The ‘thumbs down’ on any comment detailing why it is completely feasible speaks volumes for where the industry is at. Too many not willing to do the hard yards to really get us considered legit professionals.
Perfectly said ‘anonymous’.
Why have to redo the hard yeard when they have already been done for those well educated, related degree qualified (before Fin Advice degrees existed), Adv DFP, SMSF Specialist and Estate Planning education too. Why do i have to redo the same stuff.
Susan, you’ve hit the nail on the head.
Let’s face it. Government passed the buck on being accountable for people’s retirement, when they phased out defined benefit schemes, and started scratching away at the eligibility for the Age Pension and other social security benefits.
It’s financial planners who have come in to fill the gap left by the politicians and legislators, though they’ve been bashing us since the GFC. And while FOFA was necessary, (and so is an uplift in education standards), FASEA as it stands is a bridge too far.
(It has helped that Baby Boomers have been supported by booming asset markets since the GFC – but what happens when that boom comes to an end?).
If FASEA and the Royal Commission screw this up, who fills in the yawning gap to help people live a reasonable life, considering the complex financial situation ahead?
I’m in my 40’s with two young kids, CFP and tertiary educated (non-financial). I will seriously question my role in this industry. I’m not committing to 8 subjects, or 4 for that matter.
I have no issue with ongoing professional development and further study. But I’m not spending thousands on some silly box ticking exercise to then continue to cop all the silly cr@p that we currently do.
My time on this earth is too valuable.
Surely Grahame is living in the past and happy to do so. It’s embarrassing that our industry continues to want to remain uneducated and unprofessional. Time to move on Grahame.
No doubt Rodney that entry levels need to increase and nearly the whole advice industry has told the government this for 15 plus years. But the over complicated, confused and botched job so far of FASEA and ODwyer is nothing short of disgusting.
A cheap shot and a deeply flawed assumption, Rodney. I’m sorry that you feel ‘embarrassed’ to be a financial adviser. Just because ‘our’ industry is ramping up its education requirements doesn’t mean that its currently ‘uneducated’ or ‘unprofessional’.
I think you have very clearly shown your hand Rodney and demonstrated the empathetic and understanding individual you really are. Does it mean that you are ” uneducated and unprofessional” because you may 3 degrees that don’t quite make it as “related” ,30 years of experience and many other associated and relevent courses, plus CPD simply because you don’t have the piece of paper that FASEA wants you to have ?
If you say ‘yes’ then it is you and people like you who are in fact the embarrassment.
I think you and your fellow commentators are a little emotional over Rods comments. He could have phrased it better, however, for if it is a “profession”, then someone not Educated/qualified is by definition not a professional e.g unprofessional.
Couldn’t have put it better myself.