Eighty-four per cent of the 843 respondents who took part in live polling at the FPA National Roadshow agreed with the proposal put to FASEA, according to a statement.
The FPA proposed a points system whereby 100 points means the adviser meets the new qualification requirement.
Individual units of study (individual subjects) that are offered within an overall qualification, certification or designation are each worth a certain amount of points, while CPD points will also count in achieving the 100 mark, the FPA has suggested.
FPA chief executive Dante De Gori said FASEA will start establishing the details of the new professional standards and education framework for financial planners this month, ahead of the commencement of the legislation on 1 January 2019.
“The timeline for the new standards is a sensible approach that will enable financial planners the time to prepare, and undertake further study if necessary,” Mr De Gori said.
“We look forward to working with FASEA closely over the coming months as we will of course be supporting members through the transition period in every way we can.”
The FPA Roadshow completed its 33-leg journey around the country, with the final six events taking place last week, the statement said.
Its next event will be the FPA Professionals Congress to be held in Hobart from 22-24 November.
Hey Jape. A couple of points. 1) Perhaps the FPA should work towards using them as a model…and actually disclose this on there website.2) Looking at a list I see names like BMW, Qantas, Virgin Airlines and a range of other companies targeting rich Doctors. I’d be happy for BMW to sponsor the next FPA event on the hope they might sell me a few car, unlikely though. Could you please explain how BMW a corporate supporter, could be perceived by the public or the Government, as a conflict of interest and potentially influence the AMA position on say a drug trial? 3) Could you tell me where there are pharmaceutical companies on that list. 4) Could you please tell me where if I was a Doctor working for BMW it states I would get a Discount off membership fees. 5) Could you please tell me where it states if say I was working for BMW as a Doctor that BMW would pay for my membership fee.
Ok 1) Yep, that seems reasonable and is done by the FPA for the annual Congress, 2) Not sure how BMW sponsorship might influence decisions on pharmaceutical trials (?), 3) None that I am aware of as likely a clear conflict, 4) Any sponsorship probably reduces costs otherwise borne by members or increases services but I agree this needs to be balanced – fair point, 5) You seem to be stuck with this issue – Employers paying Membership fees. The moral hazard here seems quite low as many non-bank Employers do this, including mine. Many/maybe most Dealer Group staff aren’t FP qualified so I would think the more Members of a professional body any AFSL has then potentially they are safer with third party body (non AFSL) professional obligations to balance against pushy internal sales people.
Yes agree and so appreciative that the FPA is my professional body. They have a plan that is practical and sensible…how can anyone argue against it! Further they are the only body providing a solution and leading the discussion even in the face of all the crap they have had to endure.
Please stop referring the FPA as professional. “”Professional”” Bodies don’t get payments from Fund Managers, they don’t get charge one member one fee and another member another, based on which product manufacturer they belong to. Professional associations charge a single fee across all members. Professional Association try to avoid conflicts, whether actual or perceived by the general public. If they were professional they’d display payments via the Professional Partner Program. As I probably paid higher Fees then you, my say is more important than yours. Is it Not ? Professional Association also don’t allow a third party (such as CBA) to pay members fees for them. I would suggest the FPA avoid lobbying Treasury as it’s voice whether correct or incorrect, regardless of the message, could be perceived to be coming from AMP/BT/MLC etc.
Umm, is AMA Victoria a professional body? They have Corporate Partners (sponsors) including the CBA which is disclosed on their public website. The world is not as simple as your analysis suggests Angry!
Also- I would be happy also if my employer (Bridges/IOOF/AMP CBA etc) paid for my membership for me, and they or physically paid it myself and I got a 10% discount. Unfortunately I elected to pay full fees despite being offered a 10% discount because this is not the direction i want my industry representative to go. This is despite them coming out recently supporting no change to the use of the term Unbiased/independent. All a bit smelly is it not ?