In a statement, the association said the event “promises to help all levels of financial planners be better informed, better connected and better prepared” for the rapid changes currently reshaping the industry.
“We look forward to announcing informative, motivational and engaging speakers as part of the program in the lead up to congress,” said FPA chief executive Dante De Gori.
“They will share relevant, up-to-the-minute insights and information that will benefit delegates both personally, and professionally.”
The statement added that the FPA’s philanthropic arm, the Future2 Foundation, will also “play a significant part” in the congress, with delegates raising funds throughout the event.
The FPA last month came under fire from a former member for allegedly providing preferential treatment to Henderson Maxwell CEO Sam Henderson during a disciplinary proceeding.
ifa subsequently revealed that one member of the FPA’s Conduct Review Commission, Eureka Whittaker McNaught chief executive Greg Cook, also sits on the board of Henderson Maxwell owner AZ NGA.
[quote=Anonymous]Lol, I’ve done both and there is no chance CFP gets recognised as a Masters Degree… Nor should it.[/quote]
Why Not ? I insist the CFP has the same coverage as a masters degree with 12 units, i’d go further and suggest a CFP is harder than a masters degree and more credible as it is a world renowned qualification AND designation
Breaking News. These events take time to plan, even months in advance but I’ve seen the speakers line up…finally. This sounds very exciting. I can’t wait.
First up is FPA member, CBA Financial Planning on – “How to generate extra revenue by charging dead people advice fees.” I’m looking forward to that one. Very much needed if grandfathered commissions will be banned I can tell you.
Mid-morning is 2017 Host, Sam H, giving a tech session on how the SASS fund really works, plus a break out session on something not many FPA members seem to know about, and that’s the best interest obligation. mmm I’m curious, but I’d like to know more about this best interest mumbo jumbo.
After lunch, seems like some compliance sessions. Another FPA member firm, AMP FP. They’ll be discussing how to get around FDS/opt in legislation. Following that is another FPA member, Count, they’ll be talking about how to charge Orphan clients with no adviser attached.
Afternoon is Dante himself… his two sessions are a real cracker 1) “Will you go away…how to string out a customer complaint by more than 12 months” 2) “How to diversify your Business Revenue by expanding into non-core operating activities”, hear about a real case study titled how we’re selling bridging courses for FASEA.
Like most FPA members, I’ll be given the very last session a miss. It’s the ethics session. Some former AMP Chairwoman and FPA member, running a session on Successful Corporate Governance in 2018. Sounds like it will be flop & boring.
The FPA’s CFP survey indicated that few CFPs are thinking of leaving the profession.
I am a CFP (course-certified in recent years) and I can say that [b]I don’t believe the survey result. [/b]
If it was an anonymous survey then you would have the true result – many of us think the CFP-FASEA outcome is absolute bull. Yes, I will think of leaving the industry depending on how things pan out.
The FPA promoted the CFP course as Masters equivalent, international designation etc.Then they can’t even get domestic recognition from FASEA at AQF Level 8. We spent time and money to be ‘ahead’ of the professionalism curve, and instead [b]the FPA have hoodwinked us – their own members[/b]. (What hope do the public have?).
Angry only begins to describe it.
it was never masters equivalent, it was delivered by Deakin Prime, Deakin uni’s vocational and corporate training unit.
A masters degree – I have one- requires substantially more study, is substantially more rigorous and, has more than double the number of units i.e. at least 12 units compared to the 5 of the cfp ™
You are splitting peas. I have a Masters in Applied Science. I know what a Masters is. Also don’t forget that FP Degrees and Masters have only come to the fore in the last 3 years or so. Prior there were very few around.
The following was published in Professional Planner on 18th July 2016. The head of the FPA said the CFP course was recognised at AQF Level 9.
“The chief executive officer of the FPA, Dante De Gori, told the association’s roadshow in Melbourne last week that the CFP course is recognised by 17 universities as exceeding AQF7.
“If your highest level of qualification is, for example, the advanced diploma [AQF6], you will have to do some further study, some kind of bridging course that will take your qualification up to AQF7 or above – a graduate diploma, perhaps – and one thing we’ll be doing is negotiating with the independent body to have the CFP course recognised as degree or equivalent,” De Gori said.
De Gori said approval for the CFP course will not happen automatically.
“Everybody who wants their course to be approved by this body will have to submit it, but we’re very confident,” he said.
“The CFP course is already recognised academically at an AQF9 level for the purposes of recognition and exemptions from master’s programs.”
doesn’t the fact that deakin gives people 50% exemption for those who completed the CFP in their grad dip fp recognize that it is at an AQF Level 9? at least, those who have completed the CFP will only have to do another 4 subjects plus the ethics from FASEA, better than no recognition at all
No it doesn’t, because at least 3.5 of the 4 additional subjects in the Grad Dip we have already done under the CFP course.
This puts us at a handicap, a disadvantage.
While others are spending time and money on REAL professional development, we are spending it repeating and ticking boxes.
As an estimate:
– $10,000 – $15,000 for 4 subjects (Kaplan, Deakin Uni)
– 600 hours for 4 subjects (150 hours per subject – 15 hours study x 10 weeks, NOT INCLUDING assignment and exams).
It’s a cop-out and a money-spinner, not based on actual industry issues.
FPA FAIL.
your hours for the study are correct having done a masters myself.
so you are saying the CFP course is equivalent to a graduate diploma of financial planning at Deakin.
maybe Adrian Raftery who is also a CFP could enlighten us all as to why they do not deem it to be so.
What I’m saying is I’ve seen the subject list on Grad Dip from a few institutions and there’s nothing new in there for an experienced course-certified CFP.
Recall, FASEA is all about removing lower education standards.
Well, course-certified CFPs believed in higher education standards before FASEA. And now we are penalised.
[b]This FASEA education thing feels like a bl**dy lottery. [/b]
You can get 50% exemption from a Grad Dip based on experience alone. There is no additional credit for CFP Certification. Hence from a FASEA perspective CFP Certification is worthless. Financial planners who have done degrees in other fields, plus an 8 unit DFP or ADFS, plus the CFP Certification course, will need to do the same amount of additional education as someone who has done nothing more than a 4 unit RG146.
This was never the intention of the legislation. If O’Dwyer allows this she is just gifting a government mandated revenue stream to a bunch of third rate universities. Utterly shameful.
could you mention some third rate institutions, and also first rate one’s (presumably like the one you attended) so we all know what you mean
Isnt it the opposite way round? You get exemptions from CFP if you have done the grad dip because the grad dip is at an equal or higher level? Not the other way round. Genuine question.
yes, correct, if you’ve done a grad dip you get exemptions from all technical modules (2,3,4) of the program and only have to do cfp 1 ethics and the final exam and case study called certification
masters grads (in FP) should be completely exempt from doing the CFP as it is twice as long as the CFP
It’s amazing how so many people who have never done the CFP course are so certain that it’s a lower standard than their own qualification. I have done a Bachelors and a Masters in different fields, as well as the CFP. CFP was hardest.
It is a complete myth that any course delivered in association with a professional association must be a lower standard than an off the shelf uni course. The highest level qualifications for doctors and accountants are typically achieved this way.
if you did a masters in financial planning you would find it more difficult than the CFP , i rest my case
A “Masters” in Financial Planning? Where would I do that? One of those lipstick on a TAFE college “universities”. Those of us who have done real degrees at real universities find the whole concept of being dictated to by financial planning “academics” both laughable and galling.
deakin and kaplan both have one, they are pretty good courses
I would question the ethics of any organization that advertises a course (CFP) as “like” an AQF Level 9 course. I think my Suzuki is “like” a Porsche but it’s simply not. A privately run course is not a University course. To advertise their course as being equivalent to AQF level 9 is un-ethical. If I was a CFP who did the course I’d be taking the FPA to court. This is simply false advertising and mis-leading. It’s Deceptive.
I think you are correct. a class action is warranted and there will be plenty of people aggrieved by this intentional deceit
Couldn’t agree more. There’s a few thousand of us who have done the CFP course. Come the end of the FASEA consultation period, if the FPA has not delivered on this matter, the CEO better be ready.
Very true.. Especially as many were simply ‘gifted’ this CFP accreditation due to being in the industry and you do not retain the accreditation if you stop paying your annual fees. Unfortunately those two points completely kill the idea it can be considered an actual qualification and I am filthy I took the time to even do it.
The grandfathers were gifted “CFP Designation”. They were not gifted “CFP Certification”. They are different things. The FPA has clear records of those people who completed CFP Certification. There is no reason this can’t be made available to FASEA. And there is no reason FASEA shouldn’t recognise that CFP Certification.
It is completely disingenuous to say that FASEA can’t recognise “CFP” because it’s just a designation, and some people obtained it by grandfathering.
I am sure both FASEA and the government under pressure from the FPA and member submissions will relent and recognize CFP certification as being at least the equal of a 12 unit masters degree in financial planning such as those approved by FASEA for Kaplan and Deakin Uni
So FASEA and the Government will “relent” to an association that has been found wanting by the Royal Commission and gets funding by firms now before the RC. You’re dreaming buddy.
that’s what most of us who completed CFP certification truly believe and we know the FPA will come through on this one.
Lol, I’ve done both and there is no chance CFP gets recognised as a Masters Degree… Nor should it.
CFP Certification course should not be recognised as a Masters but should be recognised for FASEA purposes.
I’m sure course-certified CFPs would rather spend their time and money on professional education that broadens horizons not repeats same old.
“…informative, motivational and engaging speakers…”
Nothing ever changes with these conferences and roadshows. Full of change consultants and motivational speakers to try and quell the member rebellion. Get everyone happy and motivated again until the next round of regulatory onslaught caused my maintaining the status quo so as not to upset the “professional partners”.
seriously, one has to consider forming an association of some sort. great salary, can employ your mates, very low risk and no accountability because members could care less, so high reward for no risk and effort why would you ever leave you can just tweet about your life’s 4 F’s
The time is ripe for a new professional association.
Won’t be going. Firstly I believe that the Professional Partner Program is holding us back when appealing to groups like FASEA and Treasury and now also with other FPA members (AMP,CBA) appearing on the witness stand of the RC it’s just too big a business risk to be associated with the FPA now.
Certainly the word Professional should be left out of the sentence “2018 FPA Professional Congress”. Does the Australian Medical Association get payments from Pfizer and call them member fees and then claim to be a Professional Association? No, they do not. Does the Victorian Medical Association give you a 10% discount off your member fees because you work for a Drug Manufacturer and yet full price for an independent Doctor…No they do not either. Does CPA Australia get fees from Cannon Calculators or Handi Soft, or other Accounting software programs and call them Member fees. No they do not…. and neither should a body that claims to be Professional if they want to be representing Australians and Advisers. Some advisers see these payments as conflicted remuneration. Some of us see this as a conflict of interest.
No wonder we have red tape, over regulation and a Royal Commission in 2018 if this is the “professional association” representing advisers.
I specifically highlighted the issues of indirect product influence and how the FPA maybe influencing adviser product recommendations through the current sponsorship structure and they just ignore member requests for reform.
There is a chance to get sponsorship from car manufacturers such as BMW and others, luxury watch makers, stationery companies, legal firms, accounting firms, trustee companies, and the list goes on. Why not have them market to advisers?
110% Agree WJ. The AMA get’s money from Qantas and Qantas is then allowed to market to their Doctors. I would be happy to get junk mail from Qantas if it mean’t my professional association acted 100% for me the adviser or for the public. In the Finance Industry getting payments from some Product Manufacturer whether actual or just Treasury perception is not acceptable today. They have also ignored the many requests I’ve sent them as well.