At the time of writing, more than 48 hours after the new guidance was placed up on the FASEA website for consultation, the FPA still had not issued a public or media statement in response.
While ifa understands the association did issue a private communication to members acknowledging the release of the guidance, it did not outline the FPA’s substantive position, opinion or next steps.
The deafening silence comes despite several requests for comment from ifa and statements issued on the topic by rival associations, such as the AFA and SMSFA. It also deviates from past FPA press release activity following a federal government announcement of relevance to financial advisers.
The latest FASEA update did not specifically mention the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) or any other professional designations or the possibility of these courses being utilised by existing advisers as bridging courses under the new regime.
However, in his recent interview with ifa, FPA chair Neil Kendall said it was “inconceivable” that FASEA would not acknowledge the CFP as a suitable option.
“It’s almost 100 per cent that this is going to be an approved bridging course, so degree-qualified advisers that need to do a bridging course, this may well be their preferred option,” Mr Kendall said.
“FASEA’s complete set of requirements look very similar to the CFP complete set of requirements. So for me, it’s inconceivable that FASEA would come back and say ‘No, this doesn’t address that’.
“Now, we don’t know, so there’s always doubt, but I think common sense, and if we were relying purely on common sense, it’s easy.”
Mr Kendall said the FPA expected it would be able to announce to members that the CFP is an approved bridging course to the FASEA requirements following the release of the next wave of guidance.
The chair’s comments seem to contradict those of FASEA chief executive – and former FPA employee – Deen Sanders, who has previously said the government does not recognise professional designations as qualifications.
In response to questions from ifa, Dr Sanders reiterated FASEA’s position while speaking on a panel at the ASIC annual forum in Sydney earlier this week.
“I’m a big believer in professional designations [but] that doesn’t mean that they’re qualifications,” he said.
“The law does not allow professional designations to be equated to qualifications, they’re simply not the same thing, and I think that they should be different. In fact, I think that’s the beauty of them, that they’re quite different.”
Yesterday, fellow industry association the AFA issued its response to the updated guidance, outlining a number of changes it intends to advocate for, including specific education pathways for specialists such as risk advisers and better options for older advisers to encourage them to stay within the industry.
Clarification: A previous version of this article mistakenly referred to the FPA not having issued a “member communication”. The article has subsequently been amended to make clear that a member communication was in fact distributed but it said very little.
I recently did a 4.5 hour training session with one of the TAL Academy Masterclasses. The AFA allocated 2.0 CPD points whereas the FPA offered 4.5 CPD points for the same course. Does this mean that the AFAs standards are incredibly high or that they are just not based on commonsense. TAL is doing an excellent job on training advisers which is reason enough that the AFA should discourage them.
what a lot of advisers do not seem to understand is that the main source of revenue for these associations is to sell their own courses (like da CFP) so if they allowed members to go and get their courses (or CPD) elsewhere their revenue suffers
the accountants are even better, they call it formal structured (their own product) or non-formal unstructured (others, including from other accounting bodies), and you guessed it, you have to have a certain number of STRUCTURED points otherwise your membership may be jeopardized as you did not achieve a certain number each triennium
[quote=Anonymous]Did CFP really call for Master for all? Guaranteed the majority of their advisers wouldn’t be capable of studying for this?[/quote] What a load of crap – I did my Masters while working for a Big 4 bank (and then promptly left). They offer their staff financial assistance with study costs and special study leave for exams. Much easier to be educated while a salaried employee with someone else paying the bills than as a self-employed adviser in my opinion.
Interesting comments by advisers that have gone out and completed the CFP course. Advisers should be questioning the FPA as opposed to FASEA.
The CFP course is NOT a Masters Level course. Yes it was written by a Uni for the FPA but it’s offered by a “Private” Institution. The writer of the CFP program dosen’t even give it like for like exemptions at their own Uni. Why should FASEA? Advisers need to ask the FPA why did they promote a CFP course as an AQF equivalent, isn’t this false and deceptive advertising? and secondly perhaps they should be asking why privately offered courses via other Recognised training organisations are not recognised. You see it’s a double edged sword in that the FPA called for Prior learning to only represent 17% of 100 points and now expect a privately run course to be equivalent of an AQF equivalent.
i have polished the exit knob for the past year. For 30 years Ive done my best and awaited the pendulum to come back but it doesn’t and it becomes increasingly difficult to be effective and profitable in a single planner practice. the nail in the coffin for my CFP designation with seems to be valueless. thanks FPA, you have prof=ited enormously from us but hardly returned any value. The AFA has been the real support over my many years in what was once a very enjoyable industry.
Don’t shoot me but I’m still a bit confused. If you don’t have a relevant degree but have completed DFP and ADFP does this mean that there are some exemptions? And if so how many subjects would have to be completed under the graduate diploma? Thanks
You’ll need to enroll in a Graduate Diploma which is 8 subjects. $2,200 to $3,500 per subject. Most Uni’s recognise prior learning and experience and give exemptions..anywhere between 30% and 50% of the course for an admin fee. So that might mean 4 subjects for you. So anywhere between 8 to 4 units depending on the Uni. You’ll need to ensure the subject meet FASEA requirements, just google fasea consultation education pathways.
Exemptions for an “admin fee”. So people who have already paid to do a course will have to pay again not to repeat it? FASEA is seeming more and more like a scam for universities to make money than a legitimate professional standards body.
I completed a Bachelor of Financial Planning having already done the DFP and ADFP. My university only exempted me on 7 out of 24 subjects. I did not have to pay an admin fee for the exemption process, and naturally did not incur course fees for those subjects. However, I did have to sit down with my DFP and ADFP transcripts and subject outlines, and then ‘map’ their alignment to the subjects I was requesting exemption from. It was very labour intensive, but saved me nearly $10k.
Perhaps the FPA are just waiting to gather their thoughts after being dealt with a huge surprise regarding the recognition (no recognition) of CFP as a bridging course.
I believe that FASEA should recognise CFP1 Ethics subject, but on the other hand, I think a mandatory training on Best Interest Duties and Safe Harbour would be useful to protect advisers and consumers equally. I do not believe a this training is required to be done at tertiary level unless they expect us to learn the fundamental of Ethical theories.
If you have a look at CPA Australia or the Institute of Chartered Accountants professional year their studies have an ethics course. So it would only make sense that one of these two professional organizations will (like the work they did with FASEA on broad finance degrees) once again will save the day for Financial Planners. This should have a flow on affect to the CFP program. However I personally suspect FASEA has to make it’s money somehow and this will be a nice earner for them so it might not be. I suspect it might be a concession or trade-off they’ve negotiated between CPA and FASEA. Just in the same manner the TPB behaves. Thankfully however we’ve got CPA Australia inadvertently looking after us Financial Planners.
Let’s have a look at CPA Australia and the FPA. CPA Australia does not get payments from conflicted sources like Accounting Software programs nor organisations like Banks. Membership is not open to licensee’s or firms like KPMG. Membership is solely accountants. Even other professional associations like the Victorian Medical Association only allows membership from people who work in the health industry. Not Pfizer. Your membership fee is not based on what drug company you work for.
FPA however has members like CBA, AMP, Bridges and even business partners that accept bribes like NAB. Your membership fee is based on who you work for. You pay one fee if it’s AMP or if it’s Joe Blow Financial Planning it will be 10% more expensive.
CPA Australia puts out a statement to FASEA and gets thing done. You come to your own conclusion as to why the FPA is silent and why is FASEA ignoring them. I’m pretty sure FASEA is ignoring CBA and the FPA have an different agenda.
CFP subjects are prior learning for a masters or Grad Dip. As are many pother industry accreditation SMSF association for one. Call an education institution if you want to know about education not a self serving industry body that is propped up and payed for by the largest vertically integrated problem in the industry. Even industry experience can be recognized. As can your ADFP quals.
Masters existed well before the Comm Fin planning stuff.
There seems to be a lot of bitching & backstabbing going on since FASEA released it’s updated guidance and proposed bridging course pathways this week. What FASEA have proposed is quite fair really and recognises the many industry participants who were previously calling for recognition of relevant degrees. Many planners have a relevant degree + ADFP/ADFS, so this reasonable compromise will ensure they do not have to “repeat” the technical subjects what they already know at post-grad level. As for CFPs – we know there are two distinct camps
i. those that there granted it based on completing the old DFP (8 units) back in the 90s/early 2000s and
ii. those who have studied for it by completing the 5 CFP subjects (or gaining exemptions for up to 3 of the subjects based on other study). Seeing as the CFP subjects can be used as credit towards various AQF Level 9 Masters degrees, one can reasonably argue that CFPs who have attained their designation via coursework have studied at a level above the FASEA mandated AQF7. Therefore, this group should gain some exemption or credit towards meeting the new FASEA standards. Note that those who enrolled in CFP since late 2006 have had to have a degree as a condition of entry (although not necessarily a ‘relevant’ degree), so most of these CFPs will be eligible for the FASEA bridging courses option. As for those that are CFPs without a degree & didn’t have to study the CFP subjects – sorry guys, you are going to have to accept the umpire’s call. The jury is still out on whether life insurance specialists need to complete the entire suite of financial planning studies, however as medical specialist must first complete the requirements to be a general practitioner m(same as for legal practitioners), so why should it be different for financial planners?
In the end there are winners and losers in any political decision affecting a large demographic. In this case, the latest FASEA bridging course proposals are a fair and reasonable compromise that support the call to “professionalise” the industry. I agree with many that education alone will not do this as ethical behaviour is a state of mind and that the industry as a whole has been tarnished by the actions of a relative minority. Unfortunately the actions of that minority has resulted in the financial loss to thousands of consumers, varying from small to very large. Just ask yourself if it was your parents who lost their retirement savings accumulated over 30-40 years due to the advice of an individual, wouldn’t you be angry?
No, the current proposal is not a “reasonable compromise”. It is not as bad as the previous proposal, but it is still not acceptable. Lots of people who did the Masters level CFP course will be forced to repeat some or all of it at Grad Dip Level. Sanders seems to be going out of his way to devalue and discredit the CFP course. Someone at the FPA must have really pissed him off in the past. Now he seems hellbent on taking his revenge.
I sincerely hope that those planners who completed CFP via coursework are treated in a similar manner to those who hold a degree and/or post graduate qualification (i.e. they will only have to complete at nest 1 subject, at worst 3 subjects). Noting that the CFP has it’s own “Ethics” subject, surely this will be taken into account wrt the necessity for CFPs to complete the proposed FASEA Ethics course. They may only have to complete a short exam on any additional content in the FASEA Ethics course vs CFP Ethics subject (assuming there will be some differences with the new proposed FASEA Code of Ethics. I don’t see any additional content being as volumous as an entire course/subject though. I’m confident that given the rigorous standards & assessments of the CFP program, Dante & Co. will be able to argue to FASEA that the CFP program is worthy of some credit. After all, Deen was the Head of Professional Standards at the FPA back in the mid 2000s.
You are joking aren’t you. Sanders was part of the problem when he worked at the FPA! Sanders et al were the ones who signed off letting non-degree qualified members become CFP to avoid them moving to the AFA. It was a self centred move that’s now come back to bite.
Surely the CFP designation is not being touted as a bridging course, but rather the academic content of the CFP course. For example, If ethics is likely to be a bridging requirement of those with post grad qualifications, the CFP course content is comprehensive in this regard. Recognition of prior learning for the CFP component should satisfy FASEA’s requirement.
Recognition of prior to learning is solely up to the education providers and their assessment of the curriculum. FASEA have set out the rules, its now up to the players to interepret the rules and play the game.
If the CFP course content satisfies the curriculum, then any commercially minded institution will jump at the chance to the corner the market on CFPs by offering RPL for it.
IFA again fail on journalism 101 – if you actually asked an FPA member they could tell you that they received an FPA member statement on Tuesday.
Get your own facts right. FPA has simply acknowledged the FASEA update. They are yet to respond to it or outline their position, which the article correctly alleges.
That “member statement” on Tuesday said basically nothing. It was the same old “We are so surprised the regulators have ignored as yet again. Forget everything we told you before. Here is a link to the regulator to find out what’s actually happening.”
The member statement did NOT outline the FPA’s position, as correctly reported by IFA.
But there was one!
The FPA email just cut and pasted the statement from FASEA and called it a member notification. Typical of the FPA stance on FASEA from day 1 it expressed no opinion. Why pay $1,000 a year for someone to cut and paste a press release from FASEA or to have an association say let’s wait? Compare this to CPA Australia who actually came out early March and told FASEA to go and that got real change. I guess the difference is that CPA Australia get’s it money from individual members.
Yep, the FPA have forgotten who they represent. They are conflicted and don’t even realise it.
Opt-In and LIF all over again. The FPA plays a dead bat while regulations are being formulated, confident that their preferred position will be adopted. Then surprise, surprise, the regulators do something completely different.
When will the FPA ever learn that regulators are driven by personal bias and political expediency. The only way to get reasonable outcomes is to aggressively lobby right from the start, and never ever assume that regulators are acting with common sense or in the public interest. The FPA needs to learn from ISA and FBAA. Whatever else you may say about those organisations, they are much better at lobbying.
The FPA is a now a loser of the latest FASEA outcome when you consider FPEC and commission payments from potential white labled education solutions. So there conflicted.
To be blunt, the FPA is too busy putting out flames due to it’s relationship with the banks and the Royal Commission. It can’t frankly come out and say anything as it’s main funder, the father of FASEA, Commonwealth Financial Planning, called for Masters Degrees for all as a solution to it’s problem. So how could it possibly do anything until it’s gets the all clear from head office.
If the FPA wanted to do something it could take a lead from CPA Australia which had the strength to stand up this month and call out FASEA. Every Financial Planner with a finance degree needs to thank CPA Australia and now question the fees they pay and the relationship between the FPA and the professional (product manufacturer) partner program.
Did CFP really call for Master for all? Guaranteed the majority of their advisers wouldn’t be capable of studying for this?
85% of current advisers are from the big 4 banks and insurance companies and majority of them wouldn’t be able to complete a masters degree
so i agree, i think the government has a reformist approach to the sector
Sorry “”Degrees”” for all. Just Google “CBA Planner education standards”. Minimum is a Degree for advisers, membership of the FPA and enrollment in the CFP program for all. Some fist pumping in the accounts department of FPA headquarters that morning. Then read the corresponding FPA statement. Can you see any relationship here???? i.e CBA payments + FPA silence = FASEA. A professional association would of stood up for it’s members and said hang on stop belittling ALL planners & look internally before you throw stones. The productivity commission and FASEA is what happens when an industry association does not defend its members and remains silent because it gets payments from CBA.
Haven’t you heard? The associations are now benevolent institutions who exist for the benefit of the public, they are no longer representatives of their member base.
why is any adviser voluntarily still a member of this farcical organisation
Actually, as a CBA adviser you could elect to join the FPA or the AFA, and both the CFP and FChFP designations were going to be supported.
Yes and the AFA were mysteriously very silent on the CBA Management Scandal as well. And these are the guys standing up for us…but we now know, only if it benefits them. When an organizations like CBA slams our brothers and sister planners in CBA they demean us all in the eyes of the public. What was required was harsh words by the FPA/AFA, for many CBA planners that could not defend themselves…and yet they traded this off for more members and we got FASEA.
Commonwealth Financial Planning is both the mother and father of FASEA … please get it right 🙂
Same old silence. They have not got a response, lacking professionalism and so a fail on being a professional body.
professional body? you kid right ? you kidder nah
Why should the FPA have any preference over any other organisation or association.
What about the SMSF Association’s SSA qualification and what about the AFA’s FchFP qualification.
There is not difference her and all organisations need to be treated in the same way.
Still a long way to go in this battle and more exemptions need to be provide by FASEA.
The news release is a start but still not good enough
SMSF Association is much better than FPA
Except, you know, that they represent the SMSF sector, and not financial advisers.
you think the FPA represents financial advisers?