In a statement, the FPA – which established FPEC as an “independent body” in 2011 though it remains listed as the owner in records held by government body IP Australia – said Mr Brimble has resigned from the post he has held since November 2013 in the wake of FASEA’s decision to adopt FPEC’s list of approved courses to establish adviser education standards.
FPA chair Neil Kendall thanked Mr Brimble for his service to the council and his “outstanding contribution” to raising professional standards in the advice industry.
“In this volunteer role, Mark has guided the development of a world-leading university curriculum for bachelor degrees in financial planning. The FPA recognises Mark’s commitment and dedication to advancing the profession, and we commend him on his hard work,” he said.
“Mark has also been responsible for launching the Financial Planning Research Journal and establishing a research grant to foster academic research in the field of financial planning, which is critical in the evolution of financial planning becoming a recognised profession.”
Earlier this year, Mr Brimble’s appropriateness for the role came under fire from advisers who were concerned his other roles as a FASEA board member and professor with Griffith University would be a conflict of interest.
LOL- April fools! This guy needs to resign from either FASEA or Griffith University not just FPEC to get away from this shoddy murky world of unethical behavior!. Fancy trying to teach others ethics.
First place under a bus or enter scapegoat
[quote=Anonymous]I am a university academic. Student enrolments in do not translate to more funding for individual academic staff. More teaching staff are not employed until full time staff teaching loads are exhausted, and when they are employed it does not diminish the teaching loads of existing staff (you have to do X hours regardless). Most Australian universities use a shared services model where administration staff are centralised, so no new administration support is provided to departments with increased enrolments. More students do not give any more chance at promotion, which is tied more to research and grants. Please remember it was the federal government who decided to make degrees a requirement for financial planners. Not FASEA and not the universities.[/quote]
Thanks for the tutorial. I am a university academic also. Are you seriously making the case that there is not a benefit to university departments via more enrolments/ EFTSU? The standard of financial planning research / the quality of research outlets / ERA ranking is, well, not great. Let’s recall that FPEC is also providing grants to some of these academics. Their membership on FPEC/ FASEA is an important external service role (and rewarded by promotion panels). Please remember that we, as academics, must be very careful not to create rents for the Universities at which we serve. This is about professionalization of financial planning – and the clients they serve – not building the ivory tower.
I am also a University Academic. My payslip is based on the number of students enrolled, the number of exam papers marked, the number of assignments marked, the number of online and online students, travel to campus (dependant on student numbers). Additional Support is based on number of enrollments. To quote my University, “further staff cutbacks are likely”….”further merges of schools likely” and to support enrollments first year students will be offered a second chance at exams. 97% of my students are from offshore and English is there second language. I’m sorry but more students mean a better chance at academic promotion and more money. Furthermore I wrote a book and set it as compulsory reading. I receive royalties from the sale of that book.
You see not all Financial Planners are stupid. We are actually highly educated, skilled and care deeply for our clients. Most of all we place the needs of our clients first. Unlike Taxpaying Universities that seem to have a conflict here.
Please clarify, you are NOT a full time academic? Based on the above you are casual lecturer (known as a sessional) and full-time financial planner? Casuals are usually paid per hour. Hours are per lecture, per tutorial and per hours of marking (with hours based on a certain allocation of time per student). You do not say where you teach, but full time staff are not paid the same way you are.
Do you see your use of your own textbook in your subject as a conflict of interest?
What was your motivation in writing the textbook? To make yourself more money? Or to fill a gap in the textbook market because the existing texts did not cover the necessary material at an appropriate level or were not engaging for a student? Did you write with expert co-authors because you wanted the book to be a robust reflection of current research and practice? Or did you do it alone and therefore receive all royalties personally?
So if no students enroll in Semester 1 2016 and no one enrolls in Semester 1 2017 do you think you’ll have a job in Semester 1 2018? Full time OR Casual your success is dependent on student numbers. Even full time your success, pay grade, academic promotion are all based on a variety of factors, INCLUDING, students numbers full stop. Full time academics are rare, restructuring in Universities as result of factors (see below) have resulted in most being part time or casual.
Why go to Uni at all if there is a risk it’s going to worthless in 10 years time?
Most Australian Universities are broke. Most academics jobs are on the line. They are struggling to remain relevant in an online/ internet based world where private institutions can offer better and more relevant knowledge. Most are now forced to gain students from offshore (China). Why for example, would you go to Uni to become an Accountant and earn $35,000, when there are 19 year olds earning $120,000 as an Apprentice Diesel Mechanic achieved via a trade Certificate. It’ only logical for the University sector to try and take some of the $540 million of potential money up for stake from the publicly unpopular financial planning sector. Perhaps unknowingly, Mark Brimble is a complicit partner in this crime and is damaging the reputation of Academia. By the why you can’t fail this report because you’ll risk losing a fee paying student. Are they doing that at your Uni yet?
I’ll refer you to check out the position description for the Heads of School for Griffith University. It reads like the position description for the local soft-drink sales rep. Words like targets, attract, retain, grow and yes… the odd word research.
[quote=Anonymous]Full time academic staff are paid a salary – there’s no ‘commission’ based on enrolment numbers.[/quote]
You do not understand how Universities work. More student numbers, more funding, more staff and … more promotion (say, to professor). Agree, it’s not “commission”, but it is a benefit to the individual.
I am a university academic. Student enrolments in do not translate to more funding for individual academic staff. More teaching staff are not employed until full time staff teaching loads are exhausted, and when they are employed it does not diminish the teaching loads of existing staff (you have to do X hours regardless). Most Australian universities use a shared services model where administration staff are centralised, so no new administration support is provided to departments with increased enrolments. More students do not give any more chance at promotion, which is tied more to research and grants. Please remember it was the federal government who decided to make degrees a requirement for financial planners. Not FASEA and not the universities.
WRONG. The Government legislated for all advisers to be raised up to a minimum degree standard. It was FASEA who decided existing planners who already have degrees would be forced back to university to complete another degree or bridging course. I have a Masters Degrees in FINANCIAL PLANNING from a top uni, completed only 9 years ago. If the FASEA board and universities aren’t trying to feather their own nests at my expense, then please please provide an alternative explanation because I can’t think of one. It makes no sense at all.
Anonymous it makes no sense because you don’t understand it. If you read the actual FASEA proposal carefully ( not the rubbish in the blogs ) you will see that [color=blue]FASEA will automatically approve any degree/masters in Financial Planning, or even with a financial planning major, completed in the last 10 years. [/color]I really hope financial advisers are reading their plans better than FASEAs announcement
Exactly! Auto acceptance for the degrees of the last 10 years. If yours is older than 10 years, it means there MAY be some curriculum gaps. Things that are now taught that weren’t then. IF a gap is found you do a bridging course or for example a single university subject to fix the gap. That’s it! No ‘whole new degree’. How much you need to do is dependant on what gaps you personally have. The older the degree, probably the more gaps.
Ha ha ha…. How ironic. I suggest you take your own advice and read the FASEA proposed guidelines again. In particular, refer to page 5, go to point B 1) and note the word ‘OR’. If you are having trouble understanding the document, focus on the words OR and THEN and read it a couple of times.
By the way, I read my ‘plans’ just as carefully, so thanks for your concern.
PS. Those with > ten year old degrees should not be forced to fill gaps. Medicine has come a long way since my GP went to university, but no-one is suggesting he needs to go back to school. That’s what CPD is for.
Clearly they don’t teach ethics at Griffith University. I don’t think I’ll be hiring people, or sending kids, or attending that Uni. Where there’s smoke there’s fire.
I honestly think if you met the guy you would think differently. He taught me in my masters and I have nothing but respect for the knowledge that he is giving to his students and to the financial planning profession. Yes he is a lecturer, and yes he is does a lot of work for the FPA – but this doesn’t mean he is unethical. More so means that he was the best person who volunteered for the job because all the advisers would rather complain than put in their time to help further their industry.
Sadly we are left with a situation where Advisers are forced to do possibly a Bachelor Degree in lets say their 50’s and even 60’S ! That is not going to happen, why don’t we ask all Doctor’s, Engineer’s, Physicists and even Accountants and Lawyers to complete another degree, of course this is not practical or reasonable and they would not do it. The reality is very very few would have the time. I believe this whole Education thing has got to a ridiculous point. A degree will not stop any person who does not have decent Morale’s and Ethics, we are born with these things obtaining a degree when we are adults will NOT stop any unscrupulous person, and ASIC and Minister O’dwyer are extremely naive if they think it will.
We would like to see a Practicing realistic Financial Planner take the head position at FASEA, I would be more than happy to take on the role
Do you even have a degree or do you simply have a diploma of financial planning.. There is a difference
One of the many adverse consequences of FASEA’s “send degree qualified planners back to uni” rort is they are losing credibility for their intended role of ensuring planners without a degree go out and get one. There is a minority of DFP only or RG146 only planners out there who are now riding the slipstream of anti FASEA outrage from degree qualified planners. There is minimal support for these people, even within the planning community. If FASEA had stuck to their mandate they would now be getting widespread support rather than derision.
Good start, but more importantly he needs to resign from FASEA. The FASEA mandate is to ensure all planners are degree qualified but they appear to have turned this into a scheme to send thousands of planners who are already degree qualified off to institutions like Brimble’s.
Some will say that is not FASEA’s intention, they have just been misunderstood. But there has been ample time for FASEA to issue a retraction or clarification and none has been forthcoming. So resign now to remove the overriding perception of conflict of interest that is eroding any confidence whatsoever in FASEA.
Of course he resigned. Everyone roasted him and decided he was guilty, without backing it up.
There is no investigation anymore, no innocent until proven guilty, just trial by media and in this case by your peers…IFA are one of the most guilty parties in all this, what is written in IFA is not journalism.
Shame on you all.
There is no investigation required. The guy gets paid based on enrollment numbers into his course. I would suspect Griffith, a broke Australian University, like other Universities were facing cut backs and prior to FASEA were possibly cutting his course.The more students the more money he makes, teh safer his job, the more support he gets, the more chances at job promotion etc etc. Please google “Perceived” conflicts of interest and the implications. He should not be on FASEA full stop, get one of the other 100,000 academics out there onto it. Then we get get on an play the game.
Full time academic staff are paid a salary – there’s no ‘commission’ based on enrolment numbers.
just like certain full time staff at Harvey Norman.
You are clearly an academic with this response, stating theres no “commission” is clearly taking a swipe at the industry as that word was never mentioned. However the university will receive more money from more enrolments, simples
The whole FASEA board has been roasted here and elsewhere; and rightly so. This mob is trying to force advisers, who already have degrees, back to school. It is a complete farce, well beyond the intent of the legislation and community expectations. The FASEA board are either incompetent, conflicted or using this as a devious negotiating tactic. Whatever the reason, this is not the way a professional body should behave. Their next job will be to set the exam and design a code of conduct. The FASEA board has clearly shown us they are not up to the task and the rank behaviour of the FPA and AFA, who are trying to smooth things over, makes me sick tin the guts.
Hey “A Shame” why don’t you back up how Brimble is not hopelessly conflicted in this FASEA debacle.
His resignation is proof he knows he is hopelessly conflicted.
No investigation? The only “shame” here “A shame” is that you have missed the point entirely. You can’t create the problem, set the rules to fix the problem and then profit from the problem. That’s a … anyone? anyone? Conflict of interest. Mr Brimble’s resignation is confirmation that there is a conflict of interest and now, for the sake of the ongoing legitimacy of FASEA process, he needs to resign from FASEA also. Now we turn to the next domino, the FPA …
Mr Brimble resigned from the wrong board in my opinion.
The whole thing is a shambles- absolute disgrace
When will Dante step down? The FPA is now rotten to the core. Disgusting.
Good, however still no clarity for advisers, the FPA needs to investigate itself lol, what a joke
So he helped formulate FPEC, (which is fair enough), but then the FPA submitted FPEC as there pride and joy…to the very same guy that helped develop it, and FASEA just said let’s adopt FPEC (a lot of thought there). Interesting set of dynamics. Nice work FPA.
With 18,000 financial planners now having to buy his compulsory set text book to study Super 101, I wonder if Mark’s retiring to an island somewhere. Busily updating Centrelink rates once a year for Version 2. Perhaps next we’ll be congratulating him on Griffith Uni giving him a University medal and naming a lecture room after him. oh but but… he’s a lovely guy.
Brimble is busy updating his Ethics course and text book on how to avoid disclosure of serious conflicts of interest. What a sad joke FASEA and ODwyer are.
This is the right thing to do. Mr Brimble is too conflicted to hold this post. Much damage has been done. We met with a financial planning colleague with a PhD (Finance), lawyer, CFP and highly regarded client-centric professional who will have to “go back to school” under the current proposal. Ridiculous. Whilst the resignation is noted, it will take many years for Griffith University to earn back their stripes. By extension, Mr Brimble’s FASEA board membership must also surely be untenable.
Thanks Mr Brimble for your efforts in furthering the professional education of Financial Advisers.
But this resignation just confirms that the very loud disapproval of this whole process from existing well educated and well experienced advisers is correct and justified.
And the list of conflicted parties in this whole FASEA debacle needs to be fully documented and unwound.
ODwyer, overseeing another adviser focused hatchet job.