Last week, ifa reported the FPA has released its proposed plan for how existing advisers could transition to the new professional standard education requirements –which were introduced by the government recently and mandate that all existing financial advisers must pass an exam by 2021 and have a minimum degree qualification, or a ‘degree equivalent’, by 2024.
To help existing advisers transition, the FPA has suggested implementing a ‘points system’, where advisers must achieve a minimum of 100 points to reach degree equivalent status.
The association believes that professional experience of existing advisers should count towards achieving this status in the form of CPD points.
Speaking to ifa, Deakin University associate professor Adrian Raftery commended the FPA for triggering industry discussion on the standards, however he criticised the association’s ideas on how advisers can reach ‘degree equivalent’ status, saying the FPA’s suggestions “set the bar quite low”.
“I am fearful that the word ‘degree equivalent’ will be taken advantage of. I’m fearful of proposals like this and I think a lot of advisers would have been quite happy with the FPAs concept – the reason being that their proposal sets the bar quite low, so a lot of people would be able to jump over it,” Mr Raftery said.
“I don’t think the policy setters, when they were coming about with the new law, had the intention that the hurdle would be so low that everyone could jump over. If they did, there would have been no reason to actually have a law whatsoever. I think that’s a really important thing to understand here.”
Mr Raftery also questioned the FPA’s argument that professional designations such as the CFP should count for a certain number of the overall 100 points.
“Whether it is a CFP or a fellowship with the AFA – what happens if you stop being a member of that association and you lose your designation because you don’t pay your annual fee? Does that mean you can no longer practice as an adviser?”
Mr Raftery’s concern was shared by ifa readers, with one commenter agreeing that “CPD points should not be included”.
Another reader voiced concern over the compulsory adviser exam.
“The FPA’s 100 point proposal for education recognition is a good one. However, they have completely failed in their approach to the exam. The FPA should be lobbying for an exemption from the exam for real CFPs,” the commenter said.
So if your degree is 30 years old that’s ok. You don’t do anything but review clients.
If your dip 1-8 is more than 10 years old but you are a Smsf Specialist adviser, aged care adviser, with 25 years experience and run a profitable business that’s not ok. In 7 years you can’t give anymore advice cause your assoc planner now is deemed more appropriate an adviser, even though you may also have a CFP but no degree. Wake up people. Has anyone asked the public? My clients would run a mile before seeing some degree qualified no experience adviser.
If you have a CFP but no degree, you don’t have a real CFP. You are masquerading behind the FPA’s hypocritical double standards in relation to professionalism. Let me guess, you are also a current or former director of the FPA?
My self-interest is in keeping the entry requirements high and in weeding out as many non-degree qualified advisers as they can. As someone who has a relevant degree, post-grad studies and specialist designations i’m thinking i’m well ahead of the curve. It’s good to be me. There will be plenty of opportunities to purchase practices run by old advisers who just decide it’s all to hard and by others who wont make the grade from an educational standard. Bring it on.
By 2027 just how old will your degree and post graduate qualifications actually be? And will they still be meeting the definition of a relevant degree? Did you waste your time trying to get ahead of the curve and also trying to lift professional standards in the industry… by 2027 the 20 year old straight out of Uni may be deemed to be more qualified than yourself. Congratulations on the study by the way, but there are many unanswered questions for all and perhaps why this so called academic, line of argument is so poor and why we need some flexibility to protect people like yourselves….and me…this guy is winging because he thinks we should all just go off and enroll in Financial Planning 101 at Deakin Uni, but there has to be some leeway to protect people like you.
Hi Phil, it will 10 years older than it is now, but what’s the issue with that? When i go see my 40 or 50 year lawyer, doctor or accountant i’m making a reasonable assumption that they got their qualifications quite some time ago, given their age. Am i concerned that their degree is still relevant? Are they taught exactly the same stuff now as they were then? It’s no to both questions. Like most teaching, they’ve probably forgotten half of what they were taught at Uni and have replaced or reinforced that learning with newer more relevant information. Does that mean that the original degree that they completed all those years ago is irrelevant? No, because that’s just the ticket to the game. The cost of being able to continue playing the game is the ongoing professional development and learning that’s required by all professional associations. One follows the other.
The problem with financial planning is that there has been no real ‘ticket to the game’ or it has been set so low/cheap that almost anybody can play. As we have seen, this opens up the industry/profession to people who see it as an easy mark, not as a way to serve people. (And dont get me wrong, you can serve people but still make a really good living out of it). Raising the entry level is a good thing. But even as we make these positive changes for the future of financial planning, we will still continue to be hampered by having practitioners that don’t possess that basic entry qualifications to be able to play. I just cant go along and start doing the same PD days as a GP and be expected to be able to start seeing patients, but that’s what has happened in financial planning.
very well put, and this is not easily understood by a lot of people without degrees. They see it as some sort of scam that people like you and I – I have multiple advanced degrees including one in financial planning- are trying to pull. It is not. the simple fact is, if we do not raise the barrier to entry into our profession to at least a masters degree we will never ever overcome the perception problem that exists about “financial planners” in the market. this situation is not unique to us. many CPAs’ for example were handed their certifications and did not have a degree and it has dogged them forever, and look at how long they have been around – more than 100 years. please don’t think about this purely from your own personal perspective but consider the greater good and the future of this industry and the next generation.
In case it comes up as anonymous – Adrian Raftery here. Thanks guys for taking your swings & potshots at me. And thanks to the IFA journalist who said there were going to be a number of contributors to this story & ‘definitely won’t be clickbait again with the headline!’. Having read a few of your comments – for the record I have 25 years practical experience before selling my practice to AMP/Hillross in 2010 after the death of my daughter – did my B.Bus in 1993, became a CA in 1995, did my Grad Dip in Financial Planning in 1999 thru the old Securities Institute, became a CFP in 2004, did a PhD in 2013. Am a Fellow of CAANZ, FINSIA & a Chartered Tax Adviser. Am ecstatic that Prof Mark Brimble is on the FASEA board. I think he is ideal – I am concerned about an industry rep on there though that doesn’t have a relevant degree & feel that that is a big conflict of interest. Deakin does have an undergrad financial planning degree – it is the financial planning major within the B.Commerce & one of the few undergrad degrees recognised by FPEC as an Approved Degree. Yes its 24 units as per AQF7 requirements with 8 dedicated technical electives – the base for the legislation but we feel a Grad Dip of Financial Planning is more appropriate for experienced advisers (8 units). Yes our traditional Masters degree is 16 units but that aligns with the FPEC National Curriculum guidelines that the FPA were involved with in 2012.That is probably why I am so miffed they have lowered their own bar inside 5 years. We are targeting our Masters at international students as we believe there is going to be a shortage of advisers come 2023 & they need min 2 years degrees to get their student visas. We have developed a Master of Professional Practice (Financial Planning) that is tailormade for experienced advisers. Trying to find solutions. Appreciate the healthy debate but I think you can be grown up & try to avoid playing the man! At least I am brave enough to put my name to things that I believe in. Good luck – will give IFA a wide berth in future.
Interesting that you think there will be a shortage of advisers come 2023.
With ASIC making licensed advice ever more complex and unaffordable for consumers, and financial planners being a favourite target for media and union smear campaigns, it seems that client demand is likely to shrink by far more than the number of advisers exiting the industry.
I think there will be. A few different surveys I have conducted has the retirement date of 31/12/23 for thousands of advisers … and yet the paradox is that the general public reckon they will trust the profession alot more by then & more likely to engage with a financial adviser with their affairs. That plus another 6.5 years of super contributions.
I’m surprised you didn’t start your post off with a slag on the entire financial planning industry.
I respect your views, Adrian, however, I am a bit confused as to why you would be concentrating on international students and not Australian, I sincerely hope it is not the higher fee’s charged for the courses talking here. The problem I have found when I have assisted other Universities with their Master’s course (I am an Ass Prof with TUA) is that there is little if not scant attention given to practical experience, I also understand the AQF7 requirements.
I think maybe others have given you the bullets to fire, and the headline was tantamount to ridicule, unfortunately, you may have received some negative comments, but please try and understand it from the adviser at the coalface, as I am and you once were.
As the Uni staff have lower professional standards then our advice industry, I would expect such conflicted comments. It will be an interesting test of the low standards at our Universities when they try to educated experience advisers with significant client experience on the theory of advice and client strategy. Having trained a number of staff from the noted University I am not sure they should be making lots of noise about adviser education.
I agree Cameron. We should look at the minimum education requirements of the educators themselves – real life experience (along with educational quals) should be part of their minimum.
Has the ifa journalist sought comment from FPA about concerns with CPD recognition, and lack of exam exemption for real CFPs?
The FPA refused to answer members questions at their Sydney presentation, and promised to follow up with written answers to all questions instead. (They still haven’t). Perhaps the press will have more luck?
Are you a member? Why not contact the FPA directly at policy@fpa.com.au
Because it will be answered with bureaucratic mumbo jumbo designed to avoid the question rather than answer it.
That is just BS get off your backside and ask your question. Take some responsibility and stop blaming everyone else!!!
Why does Deakin not have a Bachelor equivelant for Financial Planning? Im guessing a large part of the adviser community completed the FPA/Deakin DFP 1 – 8 course. Why is it that the next course on offer is a Masters of Financial Planning? The MFP is 16 subjects in Total. But to do their Bachelor of Commerce (FP) is 24 subjects. 8 of which are “electives” and include subjects like “internship” and “advanced internship” and wait for it “Industry Based Learning 3mths” and “Industry Based Learning 6mths” where I get to pay Deakin while I work for another financial planning practice. Hang on…I already run a financial planning practice…can I get credits for work I’ve already done or do I need to pay Deakin to get credits for work I’ve already done? If you provide advice on SMSF, Margin Lending, Direct Shares, Super, Insurance & Investments, chances are you already have DFP1-8 + SMSF specialist course, Margin Lending Course and Direct Shares course. Map these commonly completed courses to your “Degree Equivalent” come up with some specialist courses to bridge any gaps. No way I am paying a university to complete work experience to get credits and no way I am paying to do economics 101 or marketing 101
Good comment. Highlights how Universities need to get there product sorted prior to coming out and having guys like Raftery publicly slagging financial planners for not enrolling into his crap course. The short answer is Universities are broke and have to put together crap courses to survive. Why is there so many private institutions in Australia ?
Grammar please: ” get there product” is get their product, and “Why is there” is why are there… Rather than back to college, for you it may be more appropriate to perhaps get back to school!
Get over yourself keyboard warrior. Add something meaningful to the debate.
What is more valuable for an existing adviser, with years of industry experience? A short face to face specialized course say on aged care for example, with an exam & other advisers raising questions, or alternatively Mr Raftery’s belief of paying $900 to $1,200 for a 12 week introduction to financial planning 101 and plus the other $30,000 to $60,000 for similar subject for the remaining degree. I have a Degree, a graduate degree and a diploma. I would say for most advisers these short courses are just if not more valuable and so some weighting and recognition should be included. If that therefore results in an adviser having to spend 12 months on a bridging diploma course than that’s fair also. What should be raised is why have Taxpayer funded organisations missed the boat on this and failed in providing appropriate courses. Why has academia failed and let down advisers ?
Education is such a distant concern for those who know what they are doing, how markets work and have a sound concept of real advice that is driven by real concern for their clients and not trying to build a business. All the FapA have managed to achieve with their relentless self interest is tomhike upmthencost of advice and help create compliance burdens that clients now have to pay a hefty price for.
These bozo’s wanting and thinking degrees and certificates are the answer need to be removed from the industry. They are costing it and causing more damage than the bad apples they are trying to get rid of.
I pity the fools who choose this as a profession. You poor ignorant fools have no idea what you getting yourselves involved with. Just make sure you don’t own a single thing in your name because you will be the next meal ticket for the law industry for the next few decades. Thanks FPA, Stirling job on destroying an industry that you decided to milk for your own gains.
ian respect your comment but the aim is to achieve a degree equivalent in standard NOT an actual degree. Recognition of APPROPRIATE prior learning is a fact in all institutions. Your comment re other professions- there are a lot with diploma or advanced diplomas from CAE s and are recognised still. The aim is to lift standards- not water down a degree or grant an actual degree[/b]. the FPA proposal has merit and in the absence of other input will attract purist negative comments.
There are always conflicts of interest. But come on, watering down a degree to include professional awards/ CPD points, just makes a mockery of trying to become a profession. Lawyers, doctors, accountant’s etc. first have a degree and then stay relevant via CPD’s, etc.
My understanding of the FPA model is that you can only get a limited amount of credit for CPD points, and it is definitely not an avenue to bypassing the degree requirement. Unfortunately the FPA bureaucrats have a knack for unnecessarily overcomplicating things. They really should just ditch the CPD element to stop the innocent misunderstandings and deliberate distortions.
Ian, your BA won’t be considered a relevant degree, your post graduate and your Masters of Commerce by 2027 will likely to be too old and out dated (yet to be decided) and any courses you’ve done will be NA.. Perhaps it back to Uni for you? All the FPA is doing is trying to protect advisers like yourself by introducing a system that takes into account prior learning, learning from privately run, Non Universities and non degree level courses, like an adviser may have done through the SMSF association. Your old Masters of Commerce may be to old and outdated now, but by having a points system may mean you’ll scrape across the line or just have to do a minor course. Nothing wrong with that system it’s just getting the balance right.
The self interest with this one is strong……..
Raftery seems miffed that Brimble got the academic gig on the new standards setting board rather then himself, so now he’s trying to discredit the whole thing. Deakin management need to rein this guy in to protect the integrity of their institution.
Of course an Academic from a University would say this, they have a seriously vested interest in everyone having to do their courses. I have a Bachelor in Business and a Masters Degree In Accounting and cross over Fin Planning courses and even as it is they want more. You can have all sorts of degrees etc but it doesn’t guarantee good ethical standards. The amount of money I pay for CPD and PI Insurance each year is madness already. So many industries are being affected by the “Degree Factor”. Soon you will need a Masters Degree to sweep the floor.
I’m currently studying a Masters of Sweeping… it’s harder than it looks
Mr Raftery has a clear conflict of interest when commenting on this matter. I trust readers and the IFA take this into account and give his opinion the appropriate weight.