As previously reported by ifa, AMP chief executive, Craig Meller, said two-thirds of its 3,657 advisers currently do not meet the government’s proposed higher education standards.
There has been speculation in the industry that the reforms could result in a mass exodus of advisers.
However, AMP’s head of advice recruitment and professional development, Amelia Constantinidis, said only a few of its advisers may end up retiring.
“While a small number of advisers may decide to retire before the standards are in place, the majority of our advisers are supportive of lifting education standards as they can see the benefits it provides in improving perceptions of the financial planning profession and raising consumer confidence,” Ms Constantinidis told ifa.
In the AFA’s submission to Treasury responding to the draft legislation for improving professional standards, the association flagged “serious” concerns about the need for current advisers to meet the higher standards.
“Whilst in their later years as a practising adviser, the prospect of facing considerable time, cost and the stress of completing new degree-equivalent courses and doing an examination that is not reflective of operating in the advice environment, will drive a significant number of quality advisers to consider earlier retirement,” the AFA said.
“The prospect of thousands of quality, experienced advisers exiting early over the next three years is an extremely concerning consequence of the proposed framework.”
The FPA’s Dante De Gori earlier told ifa that the association is expecting that some advisers will choose not to undertake the studies needed to meet the new standards or will not succeed in completing the necessary study.
“Either way there will be adviser losses, because there will be advisers who decide they don’t want to do any further study and don’t want to do the exam, and leave that industry,” Mr De Gori said.
[quote name=”youarebeingtrolled”]Funny how you are all getting trolled by Steve….[/quote]
I don’t think he is trolling at all, he genuinely believes what he is saying.
Scary to think that Steve is currently representing the industry… Bring on the education standards to force these people out.
Funny how you are all getting trolled by Steve….
[quote name=”Steve”]The days of stinging your clients fee for service will end. You all know that most of your clients do not need nor warrant it but your business desperately needs it.
If it was your family, your kids or grandparents you would be outraged by the very fees you invoice your clients.
Truth hurts but this is the next 4 corners scandal.[/quote]
This statement is so irrational that if you are in fact a planner in the industry, I fear for your clients and any outcomes produced.
Sorry guys, you are all clutching at straws. There is no doubt certain clients need the service but I am talking about that client you all have which I would bet my house on you do very little but small talk and outsource the investing to managed funds, etf’s or lic’s that unless you checking direct equities daily the clients DO NOT need your fee for service. I could vet you book and destroy your arguments of the clients needing your monthly fee. You know, I know it and pretty soon a TV station or journo will know it.
You better get active and justify the hand holding because clients will be wising up to the book builders of fee paying revenue clients. Is 100% of your base really need it? I doubt it, in fact I would destroy your argument on most of your clients. Ben, your busy high paid professional who needs the day in day out service of complex strategies or equity transactions isn’t in question here, what is in question is this I’ve saved the clients X or Y on my strategy (that you as a planner should know easily with your eyes shut) therefore I’ll sting them a monthly fee just for being there. That is rampant in our industry and its disgusting and must end. Stop invoicing mums n dads who could save money by deleting you out of their lives and make an appoint,net when needed, YES just like a doctor or lawyer. Truth hurts your business model I know.
Steve, surveys of actual clients show financial planners are rated at the top of the tree, alongside specialist doctors. These are the people using our service and paying for our fees. To suggest we are scamming our clients and shirt-fronting them is dilusional. My clients include accountants, lawyers, doctors, former financial planners, bank executives and engineers. They are smart people who like our service and are happy to pay for it. It would be nice if the perception of financial planners was improved across the wider community, but that is unlikely because there are far too many interested parties who benefit from a non-advised public, like Industry Funds, Choice magazine and the media for example. But hopefully these reforms aren’t for nothing and some improvement follows in the years ahead.
Yeah, sorry Steve but your comments are just showing that you have no experience. I have and hourly rates see more unsatisfied clients than you can imagine. I’ve seen it first hand. Also my packages need repricing as I end up spending so much more time than I can afford to on client work and conversations. But I am sincerely trying to help them. The industry is good and it could become great – those not on board with this need to get out now. We have so many issues to steer our clients through – we need good planners to do it. People really need to feel secure in retirement with a path to follow. Sure earnings are going to be low moving forward but in this environment – people chasing the next best thing will lose money fast. And that is just on the investment side.
Ha Ha Ha Steve thats funny one or two meetings every couple of years in retirement
Steve, clearly you feel you are a below par financial planner who does not add value. That does not mean that everyone else is the same. Statistically, Australian’s are far better off with a financial planner, that’s been proven.
Your comments on this article indicate to me that ‘advisers’ such as yourself who do not believe in what they actually do are the reason “the job has the credibility rating below that of a car salesman”.
Sounds like you really need some further education and I’m sure those who earlier sympathised with you will no longer after reading the consistent woffle you type.
Sean, that’s the whole point. The fact a planner is bold enough to shirt front clients who do not need the service plan in place is the problem.
Fee for service is not for the majority, it is not needed by most. One or two meetings every couple of years in retirement maybe but a hourly rate when needed is far more appropriate.
Don’t hide behind that SOA disclosures, this is why your job has the credibility rating below that of a car salesman.
If you can’t exist without “fee for service” contracts on your client base then get out now because it will be the next scandal, no doubt about it.
You can bury your head in the sand all you like but a good Journo will tear this issue apart and highlite the enormous rorting going on for unsuspecting clients led to believe they must pay “fee for service” or else their world will collapse. It’s coming, you can count on it and no amount of education or courses will fix the issue.
[quote name=”Steve”]The days of stinging your clients fee for service will end. You all know that most of your clients do not need nor warrant it but your business desperately needs it.
If it was your family, your kids or grandparents you would be outraged by the very fees you invoice your clients.
Truth hurts but this is the next 4 corners scandal.[/quote]
So the fees, explained and agreed to by the client, documented in advice signed by the client, paid yearly by the client – in the open, above the table – is somehow the next scandal?
It doesn’t get any clearer than “fee for service”, as in a fee is paid for a service provided.
How are people supposed to get paid for the work they do, handshakes, smiles and occasionally a hug?
If a client doesn’t want service they should just stop paying their fees. Job done.
You have rocks in your head mate.
The days of stinging your clients fee for service will end. You all know that most of your clients do not need nor warrant it but your business desperately needs it.
If it was your family, your kids or grandparents you would be outraged by the very fees you invoice your clients.
Truth hurts but this is the next 4 corners scandal.
Reality, sorry, the fee for service tripe is the next issue or topic for a four corners episode. I can see it now. It won’t look good then and it stinks today. But it’s flavour of the month and les financial planners keep their noses in the trough of earnings because paying for advice once off won’t earn them as much.
Fee for service won’t stand the smell test on any unbiased investigation and you all know it.
what do you think of this…. Industry funds like Sunsuper signing on planners to refer to so they don’t lose members from their fund… hahaha – we are NEVER going to be taken seriously as an advice industry when we have FPA endorsing this sort of thing. I was absolutely shocked to learn this. Oh, if the fund is not in the clients best interest you can roll them out – yeah right – do that and watch how quick they dump the planner as a referral partner. This industry will never clean up degrees or not – well not in my lifetime!
@ RT Too many financial planners are swept away with this sudden perception we need to charge like accountants and just cost out the work. The real value add comes from the ongoing relationship. How much do you charge to benchmark a couples living expenses and equating it back to whether their capital will last the rest of their life.Or even some behavioural coaching around markets. Some would argue that takes no time at all and it should be only a couple of hundred bucks for the time. It’s ok to implement a transition to retirement strategy but I’ve seen plenty just say screw super and cashout when the market falls. Charging a reasonable and fair fee for ongoing work is sound. We just can’t charge $200 or $300 for an hour’s work or even 3 or 4 hours work because the biggest value comes not from plotting the course ( i.e charging a fee and saying job done see you when YOU think YOU’ll have a problem) but from helping them on the road and coping with the hiccups along the way. When it comes to fees, every client and therefore every business is different and I don’t think fee debates should ever really be such an issue,and I don’t think we’d be talking about this if every one was a professional and educated to a reasonable standard. Until we’ve got guys like Steve around who aren’t interested in being anything more than an ‘”industry” and wants to thinks nothing more than a DFP 1-4 is the benchmark we’ll continue to have industry super funds and fund managers dictate our future. Good talking.
DanK, this is what it is about – charging appropriate fees for solving a problem, a real problem. You are on the mark.
I too have seen many many advisers undercharging for initial advice based around getting a new client with the intention of making the profit through ongoing fees. To me that reeks of some advisers not having enough self-belief in the value of the strategic solutions they actually provide.
It’s a bit of a broad statement but initial advice fees should be quite a bit higher to reflect the actual time invested in fact finding, assessing appropriate strategies etc etc. On-going fees set by a % or set annual fee, very much in the main, should come down significantly because very few of them try reflect justifiable value.
My view is that increasing the fee for true advice, not the fictitious review and monitoring fees, will overtime demonstrate to the public and in deed the regulator that this is an industry that delivers real advantages to the public.
Steve, did you choose to simply exclude or not read the sentence “I find breaking my upfront fee and ongoing fee down to how many hours I expect to work for them for the initial advice and then for the year works well.”
I do exactly what you are asking. I don’t base my fee on what $$ the client saves however client’s tend to. If they see they are continually benefitting greater than the fee they are paying they will continue to pay the fee. This is why opt in isn’t a huge issue to those who actually provide financial planning services and don’t just try to ‘get a client on their books’.
If a client is not seeing the $$ benefit from paying an ongoing fee naturally they will not continue to pay it.
Reality, there you go. You are taking advantage of a clients situation and this is why our industry is in the toilet and will be until mindsets are changed. You can not seriously stand there and say because they are saving X amount in tax due to your strategy (that by the way should easily be covered by a once off fee) you are then entitled to sting them a fee every month/quarter/year just for showing them this AMAZING new bit of info!
Charge your SOA fee (based on an hourly rate not how much you manage to save them) and move on. This industry needs to get off the fee for service mantra as it is disgustingly unfair to the client. Let’s see the FPA try and sell this campaign instead of education at all cost.
Accountants don’t say I’m saving you $30k in tax so my fee is $20k. Doctors don’t say I’m making you work longer so give me a % of salary going forward every year. Fee for service is a con and must be stopped. Defend that I dare you.
@DanK – Well said.
Many advisers have been surprised at the fees I charge but if you know you are benefitting your clients far greater than that (and they do too) there is no issue and not hesitate to pay. I find breaking my upfront fee and ongoing fee down to how many hours I expect to work for them for the initial advice and then for the year works well.
A re-contribution strategy is fairly simple yet can be very high impact. Some clients care about Estate Planning, some don’t, it’s not a one size fits all. Not once have I heard of someone using a re-contribution strategy without financial advice and it gets more complicated if the client has a large balance and needs to meet the work test/can’t use the bring forward rule etc.
Google doesn’t adequately meet those advice needs, nor will robo-advice… especially as every client has different circumstances. Financial advice is far more than ‘rollover your super and apply for this insurance’ although that may have been how it was in the past…
I see plenty of overpriced advice…but I see plenty of underpriced/underserviced advice as well. I recently took on some clients that had been to see their employer super fund (twice) that were told nothing to do here move along all is well. Came to see me, asked them about their specific goals and objectives and turns out were concerned about estate planning and tax on payments to their adult children. They want to remain in current fund due to all the hype around switching FUM. No problem, just use recontribution strategy over 3 years and wash out taxed benefit component (Work test requirements & Centrelink not likely to ever be issue for the tech heads. Issue identified. Quantified and resolved. Fee charged. every one happy. Education little to do with it. Ethics definateley or perhaps a lack of confidence in the industry to charge fees appropriate to solving a problem.
Jason, this is why I said its a sensitive topic.
I think you have totally missed the point. $10,000 is an example figure only. I could have made the figure $4,000 or even $2,000 and posed the same scenario. Financial advising is one of the very few, if any, industries that charges the way it does.
The pricing mode is flawed and until it moves to a fee for service provided I have to stand by my stand by the “hand on heart” question. But if it helps can you show an hours charged sheet for each client based on actual work carried out? I’ve worked with 100s of practices and whilst many can do that for initial advice few can do it for their on-going charging.
[quote name=”RT”] who can really put their hand on an honest heart and say that they are charging an on-going fee that truly reflects the value to a client? Come on be honest. The truth is you can’t justify it. [/quote]
@RT f you can’t put your hand on your heart NOW and claim your charging an honest fee now..well that’s called a THIEF. You might well be, if charging $10,000 per annum.
Jeez this is such a sensitive area. Reality is right is his or her comments. But then so is Steve and most others who have commented.
We have to address the elephant in the room which is that advisers have been paid too much for too many years for the service they have offered and have built expensive businesses around that income. That’s our big issue! To reform to a true fee for REAL service delivered is going to see revenues drop and business valuations drop along with it. There is definitely a value in an up-front piece of strategic and sometimes tactical advice but who can really put their hand on an honest heart and say that they are charging an on-going fee that truly reflects the value to a client? Come on be honest. The truth is you can’t justify it. The fee for initial advice has to go up. The on-going fees have to go down dramatically. At most it should be cost recovery.
Few accountants have any business value to sell. Doctors don’t have an asset to sell anymore. Lawyers just rely on bringing in partners otherwise they have no business value. Financial planning businesses will go the same way.
Let’s use the inappropriate comparison to doctors that we often see. Now overlay that with the risk selling pitch of protecting your most valuable asset. Now ask yourself if you would pay your doctor $10,000 a year to manage your health? Would you let him take $1,000 a month out of your bank account just for sending you a generic health report and no tests or additional preventive drugs or actions? Of course you wouldn’t but you are happy to charge your clients for that service. Doesn’t seem right does it?
Only after you did, Steve.
Don’t worry about me though, not difficult to get clients to sign annual service agreements when you actually provide them with beneficial ongoing advice. If you think the advice you provide can simply be done via a google search you aren’t a financial planner, you just flog products. That is why your years of experience are irrelevant.
Enjoy your study 🙂
Reality, your getting very personal here. Touched a raw nerve obviously. Most likely your drowning in paperwork and sick of your clients questioning why they are paying you this expensive fee every year when all you do is provide advice anyone can google and review their file the day before they arrive like most of these planners out there because your too busy being compliant.
Please stop insulting the doctors, lawyers and surgeons out there. What did they do to deserve being compared to this circus called financial planning? Lol.
Steve, I think you have done a great job in this thread showing exactly why education standards need to be lifted haha. You’re the problem and exactly who legislation like this will hopefully get out of the industry.
Robo-advice and ‘online box ticking’ is only a threat to a financial planner that provides cookie cutter advice. A good financial adviser is worth their weight in gold and comparable to a doctor, lawyer etc.. You are clearly just not one of them.
Maybe when these standards come in your can transition into real estate? Seems up your alley from an ethical and compliance standpoint.
Jason, I hate to burst your bubble but that business your building won’t be worth anything but 1x revenue with massive claw back clauses because of this circus you so passionately embrace.
You are not a doctor, you are not a lawyer, you are not an accountant. Financial planners are not even close to these professions and the study regime is just putting lipstick on a problem we all know exist and education standards will not solve anything.
When robo advice and online box ticking overtakes most practices and when the old school clients who are clueless to the fee for service scam die off, I will be long retired and sit back and smile as. Think of you peddling your wares trying to study for another profession that pays money again. Sorry, this is where the industry will head if cost are not reduced. It’s not personal, it’s factual. I’m sure black smiths argued what a great service to the community they did also right up to the end. The hilarity is you planners feeding the system & loving the regime that is erecting your hanging platforms. It’s madness.
Michelle, that is great in theory but you assume that advisers with the most ‘experience’ are always good. I’d be pretty certain that anyone in the industry knows a few advisers that have just sat on their DFP for years and provided below average advice flogging products for their own personal gain only… The faster we get them out the industry the sooner we become the profession you desire.
Whilst the bar remains low there will always be low quality practitioners which ruin it for everyone. These changes are tough love.
Wow, this is starting to look like a face book chat. Keep the personal comments out everyone – they really mean nothing unless you are willing to say it face to face and I can’t imagine that. There are points for both sides. I’m saying let the older experienced good advisers go through to their natural retirement and newer entrants do a degree – if the accountants can do it that way so can we. That way we do become a profession and be seen as one exactly like they are.
Steve your comment of “I’m not interested in “promoting us as a profession” are disappointing and I look forward to your exit & I would start planning before your business becomes worthless. I hear at lot of whinging about things out of the ordinary advisers control, what we can control as advisers is operating above the minimum level. The problem is when we operate at minimum levels Steve, is we open up ourselves to all sorts of competition, Robo advisers, industry super funds, legislation changes etc etc. If you cared for your clients you’d operate a business that was above minimums.
Realty, your analogy is both confused and pointless. A real analogy would be every driver regardless of experience needs to go out and study for 4 years part time, resist their driving exam and be told that it’s necessary because some 17 yo teens in V8’s and fast fours keep getting caught speeding. Nothing to do with you, me or most good drivers. Just increases cost and waste people’s time for a tiny minority.
GETTING THE POINT YET? Oh dear your not are you.
Nobody says it will solve 100% of problems but it’s a step in the right direction. Drink driving being illegal doesn’t bring our road toll to zero but it definitely helps by curtailing some doing the wrong thing.
Steve, think of all that study you could have done in the last week since your last rant!
Jason, you and every pro education adviser are missing a hugely important point. EDUCATION is not the be all & end all fix. It will do nothing for the bad adviser, the overcharging adviser, the insurance flogger/churner, the fee for service bunny promoting their firm as oh so ethical but 80% of their client base doesn’t need to be getting fleeced by service fees they do not need.
This industry needs a complete overhaul and cost to operate need to dramatically drop so cost savings can be passed on as an industry. This education push is increasing cost & complexity. I’m not interested in “promoting us as a profession”, I know what I do & don’t need the FPA tick of approval & certainly don’t need a blood sucking dealer group. If we can slash cost everyone wins. Jail those who defraud & permantly ban rogues. Come on, wake up! Stop this ridiculous self promoting circus that the FPA has managed to scare politicians in supporting. Ridiculous. So ashamed of this circus going on. So ridiculously simple to fix and Dudley do rights like yourself keep harping on to look good. It’s unnecessary. Experience & real knowledge is EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING! Passing an exam is not only easy to do but a complete waste of my time.
When a consumer goes to a Doctor, Solicitor or other professional they expect a certain level of education, experience and training. These are the basis or benchmarks of a profession. The benefit of being seen as a profession by consumers are significant to all participants. Jump on any finance website and the hate towards advisers is overwhelmingly disappointing. To increase consumer confidence in the advice industry we need these minimum standards lifted. To be in the industry for decades and only have DFP 1-4, and I have seen many, says mountains about the adviser and there desire to never advance their industry to anything other than a product flogging sales driven industry. I say get these lazy #$@# out.
What does ‘Goody two shoes’ adviser actually mean?
Someone that cares for the industry and client outcomes as opposed to simply being in it for themselves? If that’s the case call me that all you want.
I have been trying to actually debate with you and consider your opinion but it’s now very clear you just need to get with the times, Steve. Time to cut the dead weight holding the perception of financial advisers back.
I’ll leave you to debate the education circus. Once everyone has complied and the FPA bows again to popular belief, the “fee for service” issue will be created and YOU the adviser will lose that revenue stream. Then the goody two shoes advisers like reality will stand up and say of course we need to abolish fee for service, it’s commission in disguise. I will give it two years at best before this gets raised. In time fee for service will be out also. It will be billable hours. Clients will pay you for specific advice and this sucking them dry for simply belonging to your adviser code will stop. Get ready it’s coming and your practice will be worthless. Hit the books people, education is everything remember.
Educated Adviser, yes of course I felt happy once I finished the qualifications. I just hope we have enough experienced advisers to help the public not be reliant on age pension in the future. I also hope the cost of advice remains achievable for most Australians as it is already expensive. I’ve spoken with people who are in this industry and they think like me – degree no experience, accountants with no experience in our industry – its all going to have issues for us in the years to come. A degree does not make a good adviser. If you get rid of ALL the bad ones by a degree qual – whats the expression “I’ll eat my hat”- now I feel old!! We all just have to wait and see I guess.
@DanK – I agree completely with your scenario. If you are debiting their bank account it is just extra work for fees they clearly know they are paying.. Then again I’m sure the client won’t contest signing either. I think the way of the future for those not already doing so is signing 12 monthly service agreements at reviews.
Grandfathering is a joke, couldn’t agree more with you there. Exactly why I feel we shouldn’t grandfather education standards as the advisers you are talking about benefiting from grandfathered commissions on archaic, overpriced and terribly performing products are much of the time the ones claiming they are ‘experienced’ enough they shouldn’t need to study further…
Thing is opt-in is not supposed to target advisers such as yourself… It’s those that tack on a 1 – 2% ‘adviser fee’ upon establishing a client’s super account and never speak to them again. I am sure you also encounter client’s who come from other advisers and have no idea they have been paying a fee, or at least how much, even if established recently. Based on that I agree with opt-in’s premise at least. Could have been executed better perhaps to be restricted to fees funded directly from product. Either way if you are providing a good ongoing review service (aka – financial planning) getting an opt-in form signed ain’t difficult.
Once again the minority doing the wrong thing ruining it for everyone.
[quote name=”Reality”]@ Educated Adviser –
I hope you’re also not one of the advisers that complains about the likes of opt-in?
“Why should I actually have to service my clients that are paying me year on year?!”
[/quote]
I certainly do complain about opt-in reality. Considering that it does not apply to all those clients with grandfathered inbuilt commissions (the exact clients I am assuming you are referring) the only clients I had to send it to were clients that I was debiting their bank account. Pretty sure they see those fees AND can stop them at any time. Opt-in is the BIGGEST waste of time and mis-aligned red tape I’ve seen in a while. Maybe if all the carve outs were actually included I could see the point but not having pre 2013 clients with ongoing fee arrangements and in-built “fees” excluded is a disgrace. THEY are the ones that don’t have to comply with this rubbish and yet THEY were the supposed justification for the law.
@Michelle – Am I getting anything out of studying? Well, despite having over a decade of experience advising, I actually am getting something out of it. There’s been new things learnt, new skills embedded, and a sense of achievement that ‘middle-aged me’ is perfectly capable of going back to school. There’s a certain ‘Joie de Vivre’ that comes from the experience.
It does take more than a couple of hours a week, because like you, I don’t like spending $3k a subject and getting mediocre results. But compared to the work being put in by the youngsters in the same degree I find that I do half the work they do and easily earn much better grades.
Honestly, if people just stopped griping about having to do it and just did it, they’d probably be surprised by the experience. You listed all your qualifications, and they are very relevant and impressive – didn’t you get any personal satisfaction from completing those?
“those who want it will find a way, those who don’t will find an excuse”
Thanks Mossy – you are right – TPB said I had to be a member of IPA, CPA or ICA but I think that is incorrect as my dealergroup confirmed this afternoon that FPA is fine. thanks for confirming though.
Michelle, I don’t think that’s completely accurate (the part about needing a Commercial Law/Accounting subject for TASA renewal).
Certainly it’s one way to be compliant, but another is to be a member of a recognised association (AFA as an example) and have 6 years relevant experience in the last 8 years). There’s a couple of other ways to comply, refer to the TPB website. Here’s the link:
http://www.tpb.gov.au/TPB/Qual…
Michelle, I’m not sure who mentioned 2 hours per week? I constitute a ‘few’ hours per week as 4 – 8 which has been very manageable. Easy to do assignments in that period and we don’t need to study much at all for exams because we all know everything already due to being ‘experienced’ and advice is so ‘simple’ remember?
I didn’t like the cost but so be it. Nobody likes forking out money for anything. I do generally believe that the further study has enhanced my ability to be an adviser in a few ways, definitely hasn’t hurt!
I know when someone is experienced we don’t want to be doing further study, I agree. I do however identify that we as human beings too regularly fall into the ‘comfort zone’ as the whole industry has prior to the likes of FOFA, Opt in and now education standards.
I don’t necessarily think that a degree makes someone more ethical but it will push some out the industry that have only been here for the $$ and the low entry requirements. Anyone serious about staying a financial adviser can part with a few hours a week. For all we know at this stage it will be as simple as a ‘degree level’ bridging course.
TPB board expect Commercial Law and Accounting subject for renewing TASA – watch out for this one Steve or you can’t even do TTR advice when you go to renew. They accept and diploma and those 2 subjects though – don’t need degree. Most dealer groups haven’t flagged this yet.
I disagree that 2 hrs p/w is enough time to study for a degree and attend lectures or do online ones. But hey depends if you are striving for a C or an A I guess? I don’t like paying $3K per subject and skimming the information personally. Anyway, enough said – I still believe its wrong to force an industry with older experienced advisers to study a degree. New entrants only is my view and it will not change – I find the arguments for it for everyone not convincing given I’ve got one and don’t think its helped as much as workshops, SMSF association accreditations etc… When you are experienced you don’t want to be doing HSC Economics again. Its a waste of time and money. Someone is benefiting – I wonder who… Is it really the client? Educated Adviser and Reality are you giving better advice today because of your degree? Do you really believe a degree will make those unethical advisers ethical? Its the dealer groups employing them telling them to sell product that is the problem – lose your job or make sales. Regulation is trying to fix that – shouldn’t that be enough?
@ Educated Adviser – Sounds like we both came to the reaslisation about the same time. I’m not a couple of months away from completing my masters. Writing was on the wall for some time.
@ Steve – You may well be a great adviser but some simply aren’t. You may feel like you don’t need to prove it to anyone but the thing is you likely WILL need to soon with these changes coming in. Believe it or not I thought the exact same as you a couple of years ago…
I hope you’re also not one of the advisers that complains about the likes of opt-in?
“Why should I actually have to service my clients that are paying me year on year?!”
PS: My life in plenty fruitful. If you bit the bullet you’d realise with your ‘experience’ the study is a breeze and you can still maintain sport, travel family and friends while working fulltime and studying a few hours a week.
Good luck.
Reality. I’m a good adviser, I don’t need to prove it to anyone let alone a course flogging entity, dealer group or clueless government agency.
Yes this industry is simple. Advice is simple. Strategies are simple. When you reach a point of experience THAT experience speaks volumes and while rules, products & compliance change, the strategy and advice remains the same basic fundamentals that work. I don’t have the patience or time to debate my point with you “education is everything, let’s get our industry into a profession by education” bleating advisers. Certainly not via typing on an iPad anyway. I have a life, I suggest you get one. This industry is now a circus because of the likes of you. It turned into a circus because of advisers without a conscious or knowledge of what the right thing to do is. AGAIN, NOT A LACK OF EDUCATION. Now, stop your God syndrome and get a life outside study and books.
Reality does have a point regarding getting a degree: the sooner started, the sooner completed, and wasting time arguing about whether there should be grandfathering or how many will/won’t leave the industry really doesn’t achieve anything.
Oddly enough, I thought the message about education was being made pretty clear quite a few years back, e.g. when the FPA mandated a degree for enrolment into CFP. So I just went off and started one – I’m now less than a year from completion.
It is achievable, even for full time financial planners with busy lives. Personally, I find myself working around 10hrs a day, I have a child with all the usual homework and extra curricular activities to care for, I am also responsible for all evening household chores like dinner and cleaning because I have a husband who works shift work. I’m an active member of a local sports club, and in my spare time, I garden. So I firmly believe that where there is a will, there is a way.
I think we all need to spend less energy on arguing about this, and just make a start. I firmly believe the deadline is unrealistic and allowances will be made for that, but it shouldn’t be grandfathering, and shouldn’t be forever.
Yes, but accountants are grandfathered to them just being able to have a diploma and still do tax returns? Why not us? We as an industry have always been hit with so much compliance and extra work to prove we are not crooks and yes Reality you are right it is the minority of low life’s that spoil it all for the rest and make it more expensive for the average person to get financial advice. I’d imagine though – that other industries have the same issue but ours seems to be the least trusted – I think last time I looked we were up there with the politicians!
The industry is simple? Are you kidding?
You might provide simple, low impact advice, Steve. Not everyone operates that way. Our recommendations impact clients for the rest of their life and we should be held to a high standard. Operating in a ‘simple’ fashion is why the industry needs this perception correction in the first place as until now it’s been ‘simple’ to flog products with minimal basis and do this with a very low level of entry.
Then again I guess part of me wants to feel for you as you are clearly just trying to look after your own interests… It still does amaze me how people throw a little education in the too hard basket.
Reality, go tear yourself away from kissing the mirror and stop acting like a nerdy Dudley do right.
The message YOU are not getting is it is not needed. THIS INDUSTRY IS SO SIMPLE AND EDUCATION is NOT the problem with it.
Dealer groups and the FPA have made it a circus and you are that typical BS adviser thinking this is the way, it’s not.
Steve you are very correct.
Michelle hit the nail on the head with dealing with children etc and the time frame.
I guess that the insurers will see a spike in stress claims higher than they did in the GFC if this regime comes in as currently described.
Any smart adviser will have their own IP policy and the time is coming to claim when your income drops due to badly planned and implemented legislation.
i suppose the upside is that the advisers get to kick the insurers for LIF!!
Steve… I was one of those advisers that did not meet the education requirements… I guess the difference between me and you is that instead of complaining about it I went out and furthered my education. It genuinely only takes a few hours a week and an adviser so capable that they “don’t need a degree” will absolutely breeze through the work.
The reality check for the industry are these education requirements. Can’t be called a profession (like the others that require a degree) if the bar continues to be as low as it is.
We should be thankful we have been able to practice so long without degrees…
Spot on Michelle. Very well said. It’s a reality for many advisers who don’t need the degree and their families deserve his or her attention when the few spare hours in a week are available rather than hitting the books to please a ridiculous regime.
As for you and your attitude “Reality” you have a disgusting view and so full of yourself you need a reality check.
Michelle, I do agree the timeframe is too short (if a degree is required and not just graduate certificate). I expect that to be extended.
Thing is, where do you draw the line? I’m sure you are a great adviser but many aren’t and I honestly think that a degree requirement will go a long way to pushing many of the bad ones out of the industry. If you can get through this period you will be rewarded for being a great adviser by a lot of clients looking for a new adviser and a much more professional industry.
Reality, I get what you are saying – I do. But I get on a 7am train and home by 6.45pm usually (sometimes later) and I have a 6 year old and 8 year old with dinner, homework etc to get done… If I had to complete a degree now I would be on stress leave to do it! Its not a time in my life that I can fit it in and I have been in the industry for over 20 years with SMSF Association specialist quals and all the CPD pts to get done etc… I am just saying that forcing it upon good planners, in the timeframe that people have been given – is really mean of the industry – I am talking to the GOOD advisers. As for those who are product flogging – will a degree help them? That’s the dealer groups – they are learning esp the bank ones! Ok maybe everyone having a degree will raise the view of Financial Planners in the public eye – put them more in line with an accountant? I like that slant more I guess.
Michelle, if every adviser appropriately advised their clients we wouldn’t have these proposals. Unfortunately, not everyone does the right thing. Many ‘experienced’ advisers are stuck in the past of just flogging products (lets be honest that’s what it used to be) as opposed to providing prudent advice.
The writing has been on the wall for a while. Instead of complaining and resisting many advisers have either now completed or almost completed a degree when this was originally talked about years ago.
I support making financial planning a profession through education but not making a degree compulsory for those with significant experience in the industry. Pushing out the advisers who are good but older and didn’t get a degree and you are losing a lot of people who make a difference to making retirees less dependant on the government. Question – is it practical for a 55-65 year old adviser to get a degree? Is it fair that one who has a family, trying to run his/her business with little time to have to fit in a degree which they would have done before children had they known? I am asking these questions assuming the adviser in question is very experienced and appropriately advises his/her clients. Also I happen to fit the education standards – so not pushing my own agenda. I don’t think this legislation should be retrospective and apply to all advisers – phase it in if you have to but leave the good older/experienced advisers alone.
Craig, I seriously hope they make it a relevant degree otherwise what is the point..
I can’t become a lawyer without a law degree… and rightfully so.
look at any of the websites for AMP advisers and all they have is the diploma, going to be an interesting times ahead for many of these firms
2/3 assuming only a degree requirement – how many if ” Relevant Degree ” is enacted ?
90% will need to get a relevant degree ????
I could be wrong but there are probably quite a few advisers with just the minimum requirements of 4 to 5 DFP subjects. I can’t see how any of them will meet the 2019 target date unless they start studying YESTERDAY.