In April, ifa reported on FASEA’s refusal to recognise the CFP program in its education pathways, leaving FPA members “aghast” and prompting the industry association to respond by saying the FASEA board hadn’t received adequate guidance.
In publicly sharing its final recommendations to FASEA, the FPA noted “a degree of inconsistency in the treatment of commerce/business when compared to FASEA’s inclusion of the discipline of law as a ‘related qualification’”.
As an example, it said the majority of law subjects have little to do with the provision of financial advice, yet under the current proposals, a financial adviser with a law degree would be treated preferentially to a financial adviser with a commerce or business degree that specialised in an unrelated area such as ‘management’ or ‘human resources’.
“This approach favourably treats one cohort of financial advisers who have studied less ‘related’ subjects (i.e. law) above another cohort of financial advisers who have studied more ’related’ subjects in a degree with a commerce or business major/specialisation,” the submission said.
“This issue affects a significant percentage of financial advisers with a commerce or business degree or similar postgraduate qualification. There is also an issue that some degrees historically did not include a major.”
Further, the FPA said the issue is heightened by the lack of recognition of existing advisers’ past education that is specific to financial advice, other than the FASEA-approved degree.
“In order for consumers to have confidence in the financial planning profession they need to be reassured that study relevant to practising financial planning has been completed,” the submission continued.
“The FPA believes that the CFP program or the Advanced Diploma of Financial Planning better equip a financial adviser to deliver financial advice than a related qualification (i.e. a non-financial planning degree).”
FPA chief executive Dante De Gori said it “continues to strongly advocate that all bachelor degrees be treated the same, and for FASEA to give appropriate recognition to all financial planning specific study, such as the CFP certification program”.
“We have also submitted evidence of the CFP certification program mapped against the learning outcomes required at AQF level 8 of the TEQSA standard,” Mr De Gori said.
Having completed my CFP a few years ago (and not to mention the push to have CFP ) I’m totally disgusted that now it’s not even recognised…. for an existing adviser of 18 years i am disheartened that my CFP has the same treatment of ADFP. Revenue raising education at it’s best!
unfortunately for you and the few others who obtained one, you got duped. plain and simple.
CFP (r) = advanced diploma
FPA and MFAA both seem to have been set up by product manufacturers with their own best interests at heart. Now, they pretend to be looking after the advisers and brokers but their actions suggest otherwise.
I have an MBA with a specialisation in Financial Planning, studied and attained the CFP, hold the Advanced Diploma of FP, the DipFMBM and have 20 years professional experience, and under the current FASEA guidance will not be recognised!!! But a law grad will be?
Over Bloody Complicated O’Dwyer strikes again. The most arrogant and destructive MP / individual to good Financial Advisers ever.
Imagine O’Dwyer faced with her past education being completely worthless and to go back to Uni.
Oh that’s right the pollies have no forced education for themselves do they !!!!
No doubt every politician should be made to do a FASEA style Ethics course as clearly they all sorely lack Ethics.
As for common sense we can only hope the new MP in charge of FASEA, Stuart Robert’s has more Ethics and common sense than O’Dwyer.
you should be able to get 4 x exemptions but will need to do 4 more.
good luck with the study and more importantly the exam
For FPA chief executive Dante De Gori to suggest that the CFP certification program can be “mapped “against the learning outcomes required at AQF level 8 of the TEQSA standard simple shows that Mr De Gori is profoundly out of touch. The suggestion is laughable. He needs to get out of the way. The FPA was criticised by the Royal Commission in important ways. The errors were during De Gori’s watch. To get any semblance of credibility the FPA and its education arm the FPEC needs to be renewed with new leadership.
If the FPA cannot get my CFP recognised and I need to study a Masters then I will cease to have any membership with the FPA and deem them utterly useless (after already largely holding this view but needing their membership to maintain my CFP status).
Last chance FPA, get my CFP recognised as part of this or I’m gone, likely with 10,000 other members and you will become no more!
Did you get your CFP through grandfathering or completing the postgrad level education program in conjunction with Deakin?
If it was through grandfathering then you have zero chance of recognition. FPA isn’t asking for recognition of grandfathered CFPs, only those who did the postgrad level education. Grandfathered CFPs might as well resign from the FPA right now. Frankly the majority of FPA members wish the grandfathers would hurry up and resign, as their lingering presence devalues the designation for everyone else.
Agree. Less than 20% of all CFP are legacy status (grandfathered, 8 undergraduate level DFP subjects only). So they’re cactus.
your CFP is recognized! Congratulations a lot of people have not had their bachelors or masters degrees recognized.
CFP is the same as an advanced diploma, 2 exemptions so you only have to do another 6 subjects. that’s great news!
I would like my Certificate in Advance Dance and Financial Advice from Bob’s school of Dance to count too please. Bob told me it’s the premier course in Finance. Just like the FPA, he told me and advertised it was “like a Masters”. I believed him and paid a lot of money.
I hold graduate and post graduate qualifications and it’s the hardest thing I’ve done. You just try to spin on one foot and calculate the age pension…. it’s really hard. Bob now has awarded me a Black belt in Break Dancing, Tap & Superannuation Level 1 and Level 2.
I have written to FASEA and requested if they recognise the CFP course they should also recognise Bob’s courses.
Good luck with the national exam based on those qualifications. Exit, stage left – permanently.
I would not employ someone with a CFP Logo after their name. Their members have been up before a royal commission. It’s too tarnished.
No full CFP would ever come anywhere near your suburban Milk Bar business anyway.
Agree- wouldn’t employ a CFP given the FPA’s behavior and relationships with product manufactures.
1-2 CFP holders out of 100 or so people on the stand?
RACV, NRMA, and Fly-Buys would have had much higher representation at the Royal Commission. Make sure not to employ any of their members either.
Um, were there any CFP who gave evidence at the RC? Henderson was not a CFP. Name one please.
AMP Financial Planning, NAB Financial Planning, CBA Financial Planning. All the above are members of the FPA. Their membership fees/payments are bundled up and called member fees. So if these members pay like members, pay for other members… then they’re members. Seems many members are complicit with the behavior of these members.
Please name one CFP who has written to the FPA about the behaviour of either the FPA on the stand or the behviour of these fee paying members.
CFP = [b]C[/b]rap[b] F[/b]or[b] P[/b]iddle
The 5 subject CFP prgram post 2010 is definitely the toughest post graduate course I have ever done. For you Papa, the “intellectual challenge” is swinging from a tree and eating a banana at the same time.
At least Papa knows how to spell check..
FPA- always looking after their “Own BEST INTEREST”. I wonder what would happen if a financial Planner did that?
Who cares what the FPA thinks. They’re a joke. Why even give this air time.
FPA = stupido
Members of FPA = most stupidos, stupidest
In recent years, there was already a push from employers for higher education standards. This was reflected in FP job advertisements and preferred candidates. Higher educated candidates were receiving the better job offers.
Inexplicably however, FASEA’s proposal earlier this year completely ignored what was becoming industry practice anyway. We are all struggling to find an equivalent precedent to FASEA’s proposal. While some justifications were put forward by FASEA they have been shown to be quite weak under further examination.
Here’s hoping FASEA get it right second time around.
Where is CPA in this? The Diploma of Financial Planning that was achieved as part of the the RG146 programme?
Good point. Whats the point of the RG146 compliance regime if they’re just going to make it irrelevant?
Ofcourse FPA would seek for their CFP designation to be considered… its the second biggest revenue source for them. I have always had doubts for this course as being considered a pinnacle of advisers acknowledgement. CFP was originally introduced as a means for diploma/adv. diploma to improve their knowledge… now a bachelor as standard there is no way they can consider the CFP as an AQF8 eqivalent!!! I will be studying for my masters and telling my clients which has greater recognition of my abilities.
I have both a Master of Financial Planning and a CFP, attained through writing the CFPC a year ago, and I can tell you the CFPC was far more taxing than any of the MFinFP courses…
I also hold CFP status, completed a few months ago and the last four subjects were the most demanding subjects I have studied. For those attacking the course having not studied it is pure ignorance
that’s your personal opinion. and mine is the opposite, that it is [u]impossible[/u] for a non-AQF rated course (the CFP) that is 5 units in total, delivered by deakin prime (who themselves only allow a 4 unit exemption (for the CFP) into their grad dip fp 8 units in total), to be more taxing than a 12 unit AQF accredited course at AQF Level 9. 12 – 5 = 7. [u]AQF 9 > AQF 0[/u]
Having completed a 12 unit masters degree, and seen both the content of the CFP program, and its product (the advisers who have obtained one) I would say your comments are pure fiction
a masters is [b]by far a superior [/b][u][/u]qualification than the CFP, and it’s not just me saying that:
the FASEA will say the say same, it’s just a matter of time, but luckily for you; you have both (and hopefully your’s is accredited by FASEA) otherwise, back to school you go
ciao pal
Depends where you did the Masters boof. You do of course, hold a G8 University qualification don’t you? No? Don’t you know what that is?
I have done both, CFP was harder and required more study and thought. Masters was a tick box where I did nearly all assignment and study last minute in day or so before due and still slid through with little effort.
I read the FPA’s proposal Exec. Summary. The idea that the CFP (especially it’s older versions) is comparable to a relevant degree is laughable and the FPA should be ashamed of pursuing such recognition. Clearly this is in the interest of members, but not the broader public professionals are supposed to serve. This by very definition of how professionals operate and particular components of the FPA’s code itself (amongst other ethical codes), excludes it from being considered a professional body.
The proposed watering down of bridging courses and the exam are also pathetic.
Let’s hope this doesn’t lead to the usual misinformed ranting about “CFP is just a designation” and “why should grandfathered CFPs get a free ride”.
FPA is seeking recognition for the [b]CFP Certification Program[/b]. Not the [b]CFP Designation[/b]. They are [b]different things![/b]. Not everyone who has completed CFP Certification holds the CFP Designation. And not everyone who holds the CFP Designation has completed the CFP Certification.
This is far more sensible than FASEA’s ridiculous proposal. It is much better aligned with the legislation and community expectations. FASEA’s proposal is driven by the conflicts and prejudices of its Board members.
The only way this will happen is if they make it a qualification and not a designation. This would mean they remove the need to be an FPA member to call yourself CFP and take it away from those who didnt study for it… They would lose a lot of members…
Next time you see a medical specialist, ask to see their specialist qualifications. Most will only be able to show you their undergrad medical degree, and their membership certificate for the association that governs their specialty. Their specialist training program is overseen by their association, and once completed the doctor is given a designation such as “Fellow” to recognise their expertise. In most cases they do NOT receive a separate qualification for that specialty. Similarly for Chartered Accountants.
There is nothing wrong with having a designation instead of a qualification. It’s how most professions work. Yes, there is a problem with “grandfathered CFPs” having a designation they haven’t studied for. But the FPA isn’t seeking FASEA recognition for grandfathered CFPs. Only those who have completed the study component.
Agreed. The legislation requires a ‘degree’ equivalence. The only objective measure of this is to reference the AQF system. The AQF system only relates to qualifications, not designations. The FPA needs to give up on this and start positioning the designation as being of some value.
For reference, CA and CPA are not qualifications but they have value in the community.
They need to but they wont. This is all about self-preservation for them. Other than forcing people to be members for CFP status or tax prac status, there is no reason anyone would pay fees. The FPA understands this.
Its frustrating as the greater FP community and consumers are held back from actual progress due to this. Always self-interest getting in the way, what they are proposing they help regulate…
again partially incorrect. all of you will need to do a research subject and be able to reference properly (using qualified sources, not your opinion as it is worth 0), when you are going to have to upgrade your qualifications because of FASEA.
the CPA program is a dud like CFP, it is not a qualification, it is only a designation, mostly multi choice exams, comprising in total 6 subjects where you can get up to 2 exemptions. you can only use the CPA designation as long as you are a full fee paying member.
the CA ANZ on the other hand not only gives you a designation (CA), but is also a graduate diploma which is AQF accredited at level 8.
the least known (and least wasteful) and the third and smallest accounting association, the institute of public accountants (IPA) incidentally offers their program as a masters degree through Deakin university which is the highest on offer from any of the accounting associations at AQF level 9
unlike the Dud courses that are the CFP and CPA, the CA and IPA programs are both designations and academic qualifications in one, so they are portable throughout the world.
that’s what a smart association would do or would do, or would have done and have done.
the CFP is a dud and those with it are the biggest duds of all. FASEA is going to give you a big 0 (zero, zilch, nada, nothing) for it.
sincerely yours
Papa
Going by your complete disregard for proper grammar and punctuation I have sincere doubts that you have any qualifications at all Papa. If that is the case then you shouldn’t be criticizing anything you haven’t completed yourself!