The guidance update, issued just over a fortnight ago on Tuesday, 20 March, clarified that all advisers will be required to undergo at least one unit of additional study, while also providing more information on bridging courses.
The guidance update did not include specific references to the FPA-run CFP program or other professional designations, and the FPA did not issue any subsequent response.
However, in a statement today, FPA chair Neil Kendall said the organisation “strongly supports” the raising of education standards but that the current proposal does not give adequate consideration to some forms of prior learning.
“We believe FASEA’s latest proposal does not give sufficient recognition to financial advisers who have completed a degree and undertaken additional studies in financial planning,” he said.
“Failure to recognise study completed by existing financial planners is likely to reduce the availability of financial planners and drive up costs for consumers.”
Mr Kendall added that the FASEA changes were “part of a comprehensive package of changes” and all components needed to be assessed simultaneously.
The FPA is also seeking feedback from its members regarding the draft code of ethics also put forward by FASEA last month, the statement said.
“The active participation of our members in the consultation period is important so that they can be heard. We would expect all members have now had the opportunity to review the latest FASEA announcement, and we strongly encourage them to take the time to complete the questionnaire,” Mr Kendall said.
Prior to the release of the guidance update, Mr Kendall spoke to ifa about the expected value of the CFP designation within FASEA’s education standards and other topics.
we should all go on strike ..!! – NO rollovers, NO SOA’S. NO lodgement of SMSF ITRs….ha ha LOL
bring the system to a halt…!!
The CFP Course and the CFP Designation are different things. Some people hold the CFP Designation without ever completing the CFP Course. Some people have completed the CFP Course and do not hold the CFP Designation.
The CFP Designation on its own is not deserving of FASEA credit. However the CFP Course is.
If FASEA is going to try and play semantics by saying “CFP is not a qualification” then the FPA needs to issue a separate qualification to those people who have completed the CFP Course. Given the CFP Course was delivered in association with Deakin, surely they can come to some arrangement with them?
To emphasis my previous points to be very fair to the FPA it’s clear from the get go that FPA only wanted courses listed on their FPEC list to count towards degree status. Previous experience in their eyes were only worth a small weighting like the CFP course and existing finance related Diplomas and Degrees a small weighting as well. If you paid and enrolled in a CFP course it gets you a CFP and that all and the FPA never intended it to count towards a Degree for FASEA.
Their position all along was for members to have a Bachelor of Financial Planning. We saw how they boasted about gifting FPEC. You can’t expect the FPA to do a 360 degree backflip now and they won’t and it’s way too late. Members perhaps should be asking 1) how did they get it so wrong…2) are the management still the right people to drive this forward given there is very strong differing of opinion. It’s too late to be surveying members and asking about their qualifications. Do not count on Mr Magoo and his crew to help you,, write to FASEA directly.
Way too late now FPA. As a mbr I’m very disappointed in the way the FPA have handled this matter. They’ve really placed their own self interest ahead of advisers and Australians. They promoted & put forward FPEC as the gold standard resulting in those even with a Masters of Financial Planning stressing out and writing to their MP’s calling for change. I’ve already written to my local MP and the Minister. Business Plans have been made, decisions put in place. I suggest you run away and play with your FPEC list.
The announcement was interesting in what it didn’t say. It talks about advisers “who have completed a degree and undertaken additional studies in financial planning” but fails to mention those who completed a Diploma in Financial Planning or an Advanced Diploma. What does the bridging program look like for them? Will they have to complete a Grad Diploma?
The FPA say they “will be advocating for recognition of further education that existing degree-qualified advisers have undertaken to improve their knowledge and skills.” Nice way to pivot away from those planners who hold a Diploma or Advanced Diploma.
It looks like the FPA and AFA have been ignored by FASEA.
FPA members please read the FPA white paper on this issue and there original 100 point proposal delivered to FASEA. From memory I’m guessing 20 pages were devoted to FPEC and why FPEC courses are the gold standard. One page stating [b]previous experience should be worth only 14 points out of 100[/b]. A Diploma worth 20 and a finance degree also worth jack… Every FPA member, especially if you hold a CFP needs to read that document and then make a determination as to whether they should continue to belong to the FPA.
Would you tell a board dominated by Academics that EXPERIENCE is worth 14 points out of 100 and brand new shiny Bachelor of Financial Planning should be the standard??? Dante did.
Considering you can get a diploma or advanced diploma with ease as it is at such a low level, why is this surprising?
Education standards, and decisions around Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) are at the discretion of the individual Institution (university or otherwise). Similarly it is dependent on the individual experiences of each adviser. Look at your own individual situation, contact your institution of choice, and inquire what their RPL process involves, and what might be required of you. I’m not sure exactly how FPA (or AFA for that matter) can be expected to do for you to assist with that.
Well said , Must represent its members is a must … thats what I am paying them for .
If the FPA can attempt to have FASEA change and get the CFP accepted then other bodies can do the same thing. We also need to have the AFA’s FChFP and the SMSF Association’s SSA also accepted and just undertake the ethics module.
Those members who have undertaken the above extra programs have clearly shown that they do undertake additional CPD and qualifications and these need to also be accepted.
If someone, like me, chooses only to write risk (only) as I have for the past 25 years or more, what part of my education do I need to upgrade or “lift” Mr. Concerned? I do Kaplan ongoing education, I stay abreast of all RELEVANT changes to product and (any) legislation regarding risk products and their implementation (super rules etc that impact risk).
.
Why must someone like me spend $tens of thousands and dozens of hours on irrelevant degrees and exams that aim to turn me into a full financial planner? All this so I can just continue to advise clients on appropriate life, trauma and income protection. Seriously? Please explain Pauline! Nobody has been able to so far! I’m not trying to be a smart arse about this, I am honestly asking for it to be explained to me.
.
For someone like me (and many other advisers) who has not had a single complaint EVER in my 33 year career I think I and the others deserve much better than this ‘one-size-degree-fits-all’ stupidity being trotted around the traps by the ridiculous and wholly conflicted FPA and FASEA contrivances.
.
Risk advisers offer a different service and service. Why don’t the FPA lobby to have real estate agents or stock brokers and mortgage brokers do the degree and exams? – it would make as much or as little sense as risk advisers being forced to do it. Remember, it is only the history of our industry that creates any link with risk advisers and financial planners. we operate differently and consult with clients differently.
So what do you do for clients who want advice on something other than insurance? Surely you dont turn these clients away.
To answer that question because I also chose to be a risk specialist, you refer these customers to an adviser or professional that you know will be a specialist in that particular area. Good for the customer and good for us to know that they as a valuable client will be in safe hands instead of with someone who may be qualified in every area but a specialist in non.
I have no issue with raising standards but only where relevant and not just for the profit of a few lobbyists.
Imagine if government wanted to lift the standards of the food industry in say hygiene, health and safety which would be good for customers. You would obviously think that the best approach would be to regulate additional training in this area relevant to the type of food being supplied.
But imaging saying to sushi restaurant, we now want you to spend 2/3 years learning how to bake, or how to prepare french or italian cuisine. This would of course be ridiculous but this is exactly what we are seeing with government and FASEA.
Perhaps you need to lobby that in an advice practice there needs to be a senior adviser who is compliant in holistic advice, this would allow the senior adviser to oversee other advisers in the practice which would allow them to specialise in their chosen area. Similar to what I imagine goes on in a law firm, each lawyer would have some knowledge of different areas of law but ultimately would specialise in only a few areas with a senior lawyer above them.
Something like this would allow a group of advisers to come together but would still ultimately force a single self employed adviser to be qualified to give holistic advice or merge.
Well said Anonymous. I’m the original Anonymous that stated I’m a risk specialist. Yes, I send the clients to a trusted financial planner I’ve worked with for 15 years. Trust her implicitly.Best advice anyone can give or get is ‘stick to your knitting’ and/or ‘horses for courses’. She refers her risk clients to me. we do not have a financial arrangement as I see those as difficult to navigate with the client and demeaning to all involved – too hard to explain and stay impartial.
.
Oh, and here’s a suggestion/request to all posters. If you are going to post as Anonymous it would be a great idea to number yourself so the comments are simple to follw and we know who’s saying what to whom i.e. Anonymous1, Anonymous2 . . etc.
It seems that CPA Australia are doing a better job in this space on behalf of its members.
You say that again. It’s like every planner with a degree in a finance related course owes them a thankyou. It just highlights the differences in the two organisations. One (the fpa) clearly is clueless.
There are more than 260000 members when CPA Australia and CAANZ combined. They surely have more muscle representing members concerns to FASEA and have been seeing results. Frankly speaking, financial planning has been one of territories of professional accountants anyway.
Regardless of pulling power the FPA could have come out much earlier and highlighted the flaws of FASEA. FPA should not have put forward FPEC in the first place. Clearly CPA are in tune with it’s members all 260,000 of them.
Couldn’t agree more. I think the FPA’s want to big note itself by being seen to be ‘involved’ clearly clouded whatever strategic nous they have. They are children playing in a big boys game; out-gunned, out-muscled and out-smarted.
Totally agree. With only a small number of members from FPA, cant really do much. When it comes to compliance and policy and standard sittings, had better leave that with the professionals like Certified Practising Accountants and Chartered Accountants.
The FPA like the AFA were conned by the FSC and now this FASEA operation is nothing more than a fee generator for the Universities. Their expection that the CFP designation actually means something will be horribly shaken when FASEA in essence says its worthless.
Lets wait for that decision from the University driven FASEA
CFP was pitched as the premier qualification at post graduate level. A masters was considered an ‘entry pathway’. It is closely aligned with the FASEA requirements so why is it not an accepted qualification alone or with a bridging subject?
You need to adjust your premise. CFP is not a qualification, it is a designation. Always has been.
The ‘post-grad’ level activities required were an entry requirement, not a qualification.For a while, it was the premier level of education, but it was never a qualification.
& not to mention the 6 years of part time study that it took to get the qualifications in the first place
Given PS 146 / DFP is the current mandatory law for Advising, how can any sane new rules give zero credit to all the time and $$ spent.
Then of course the Adv DFP, again nothing.
SMSF Specialist courses = nothing
Estate Planning Specialist courses = nothing
For well educated / relevant degree qualified advisers with additional education.
The new FASEA rules will still cost about $120,000 per Adviser I’m Uni course costs and lost hours work at 120 hrs per course x 3 x $300 / hr.
Times how many thousands of advisers that need to re-educate. The costs are monsterous.
And thus the $ bonus to the struggling Uni’s is huge.
Failure by the FPA and other associations will see the industry fail. Other bodies such as the accounting profession will put up good arguments so pick up your act FPA a fail is not acceptable. Be a leader NOT a bad second place in representation, tomorrow would be a good start.
the FPA may have broken their silence on FASEA but they have still failed to tell us anything!
Only a few are disputing the need to lift education standards in the industry, however the FPA must represent it’s members and back the education courses it promoted and sold to us, both the Diploma of Financial Planning and the CFP program for some level of recognised prior learning towards the new education standards.
Pretty sure CFP plus relevant experience will give up to 3 of the 8 subjects required in a Grad Diploma… I think education providers have made this clear already?
Did you read thier statement? Isn’t that what they said??
Totally agree. The fact they are not is a disgrace.
RPL is choice for each education provider, not the FPA?! But, they won’t be able to work out what they’ll offer until the curriculum becomes clearer.