Earlier this week, Swinburne University of Technology announced the launch of five new courses targeted at financial advisers ahead of the commencement of FASEA’s education standards.
A university official told ifa that the courses were developed in consultation with the FPA and that two of the courses – bachelor of business (accounting and financial planning major) and bachelor of business (financial planning major) – would be “FASEA/FPA approved”.
Responding to questions from ifa, a spokesperson for the FPA said the association itself was not involved in the consultation and does not approve any courses and that no commercial transactions have taken place between the two organisations.
However, the spokesperson revealed that a representative of the Financial Planning Education Council (FPEC) had spoken with Swinburne during the course development stage.
The FPA maintains that FPEC is an “independent body” that it established in 2011, but records held by government body IP Australia reveal that the FPA is listed as the “owner” of the FPEC trademark.
ifa understands that FPA chief executive Dante De Gori and head of academic relations Howard Cook both sit on the FPEC board and attend its meetings.
Swinburne’s initial statement also claimed the five courses were approved by CAANZ, however subsequently issued a correction to specify only three of the courses had the CAANZ accreditation.
Murky??….oh yeah!
Smelly.. I think the comments here just highlight how out of step the FPA really are with it’s members. It’s like we’ve all adapted to FOFA, we’ve all undergone significant pain and worry with Opt in and FDS and they are still living in 1980. I think it’s a failure at management level to change as they are supposed to be the leaders and not the followers. They are supposed to representing planners and of course the public, but to go down this path of being there own little profit making enterprise is to say the least…disappointing.
The FPA believes that because it is getting payments from Commonwealth Financial Planning for their professional partner program it is not the same things as getting payments from Commonwealth Bank the product provider. Who are the FPA representing in this relationship, planners or product manufactures and how is this relationship perceived by legislators? Once again they are doing the same thing with FPEC and the registration fees involved in getting courses listed on FPEC. A list of courses that are gifted to FASEA by the FPA.Here in this instance the difference between an acceptable course and a course that won’t meet FASEA requirements is only four units. When it comes to ethics the unethical is become the norm in the FPA. Clearly the ethical line has been crossed and they are blurred to these conflicts of interest.
FPA seems to be the master of the dubious double standard. Allowing people with no university level education to call themselves a CFP is another classic example.
For goodness sake FPA get your house in order. Stop trying to be all things to all people. Start acting like a professional association instead of just talking about it.
Got my invitation to the FPA Sydney Chapter presentation today. Proudly sponsored by CBA. Speaker from CBA. Probably an introduction from the Sydney Chapter president, a BDM from CBA.
So you would rather fork out a fair amount of $$$ for the event yourself, room hire, refreshments and quality speakers cost a fortune. Get real, sponsorship for these types of events are commercially sensible and I have no problem with them at all – depending on content I/you are free to choose to attend if it is relevant or not. The accountants we deal with always complain about the high costs of their events, and normally miss out of valuable content simply because they can’t afford to go to too many.
Don’t get me wrong, I am normally a critic of FPA for their other failings, such as FOFA sodomisation of our rights traded for useless ‘enshrinement’, the lack of will to fight effectively the now proven false ASIC & FSC LIF allegations, and this whole FASEA nonsense so badly handled. Think they have signed their own death warrant there, as the minute we have no ‘need’ for the CFP there will be a mass exodus… however, until then, happy to get education and generally okay food on someone else’s corporate expense account, after all, I need my money to pay for all the BS new reg’s we have to handle to no benefit of the client.
There is a clear distinction between the Professional Partner Program (PPP) and corporate sponsorship of FPA events. One is clearly disclosed for those attending to realize the a product manufacturer is paying. I have no problem with this.The second the PPP is a program where product manufacturers via their related subsidiaries pay the FPA a lump payment to help influence advice in Australia. These payments are undisclosed and called member fees in their annual report. These payments are a conflict of interest.
I have no problem going to a free CBA product event when CBA hosts it. I think CBA has some great products and I use many of them. Their technical team is top notch. But from an FPA point of view it undermines their credibility as a professional association when they do commercial deals with companies that control large numbers of advisers and have a strong interest in preserving vertical integration.
The FPA has been utterly ineffective in representing adviser interests because they have no credibility with regulators. They call themselves a professional association but keep acting like a conflicted industry association.
Time for more detailed answers???
FPA report for 2017 shows membership at 12,889 including 5,629 CFP’s (what value now the CFP?)
Income for year $13.5 million of which $2.5 million was CFP related. A good portion of the report shows CFP related advertising used during the year.
There have been comments querying the new system from a rich diversity of backgrounds – engineers, sciences, psychology. This diversity is invaluable in our profession. Most of these, like me, have spent big on DFP, CFP etc etc along the way. Now with busy practices at the end of our careers we have a distinct threat of having to return to school (at, no doubt, further great expense as is the Australian ‘Ticket System’ Education system).
Kelly O’Dwyer seems to be the lawyer, groomed by Peter Costello, but like so many politician a lawyer with no real mud on her shoes in the real world of small business.
Surely we have come a long way since the days of Port Arthur. But I wonder – sorry you don’t pass the 100 point test, put the hood on and come out in 200 days when you have economics 101 like the other fresh uni graduates. Pay $2,000, do not pass go and cancel all week end passes, and by the way the RPL for the other 99 points is going to cost you another $10,000!!
FPA paid roughly $30,000 per director plus super plus expenses (unrecorded), this was $306,000 down from $830,000 in 2016?? Executive team costs up to $1.99 million from $1.48 in 2016. Let’s do better than 100 points and tick a box.
By the way accounting graduates come out every year with many of these qualifications. They really understand very little. One masters student (already graduated) took 6 attempts to address an envelope – when I brought this up with the university – the intellectual, ivory tower response – “why are you asking a masters student to address an envelope?”.
A luta continua.
And where is the governance from the Chair Of the FPEC (and FASEA member) Mark Brimble and board members? Talk about vertical integration – creates the problem; the gatekeeper for courses to “solve” the problem; and benefits (including Griffith Univeristy) from the solution. The interconnectedness (and obvious conflicts of interest) between FPEC, FASEA and FPA are … Royal Commission-worthy. So much for professionalisation of financial planning.
Actually, this looks like a Swinburne stuff-up. Seems they can’t even count the number of courses that are accredited. Speaking with someone is hardly the same thing as developing courses in consultation with them. My kids teachers talk to me all the time – doesn’t mean I developed their courses.
Will their courses self-destruct in ten years like mine?
Caught out again! Why don’t you disband, give everybody back their hard earned membership fees and disappear down the rat hole where you belong
It’s like listening to Donald Trump!
Nice try passing the buck FPA, of course it wasn’t us the FPA it was FPEC, who is owned and run by the FPA.
Wow FPA you are so hopelessly conflicted in your role as adviser body and education sales company and now lying at every turn to try to defend your hopelessly conflicted position.
And the scary thing is that it sounds like you even believe your own lies.
Could not agree more! FPA need a change of management