The head of the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) expects that the Albanese government will make good on its promise to address education standards in the financial advice sector.
Appearing on a new episode of the ifa Show podcast, AFA CEO Phil Anderson said there is reason to be optimistic about positive change with the Quality of Advice Review (QAR) set for release in December, as well as the appointment of financial services minister Stephen Jones who previously pledged to fix the “Mickey Mouse job” of education standards.
In the lead up to May’s federal election, Mr Jones said Labor would not require advisers with 10 years of experience and an “unblemished record” to complete a university degree to practice.
Currently, existing advisers with no degree must have an approved qualification by 1 January 2026.
“I think Stephen had made a commitment to address the issue with the education standard,” Mr Anderson said on the podcast.
“We do expect the government to move on the education standard… but I think largely everything else will depend upon the recommendations that come out of the Quality of Advice Review.”
Mr Anderson’s comments come after fellow industry body, the Financial Planning Association of Australia (FPA), said that addressing the education standards should be the “first order of business” for Mr Jones.
The current requirements have been criticised by a number of groups within the sector, including the FPA, AFA and The Advisers Association, with CEO Neil Macdonald saying the industry will experience a “mass exodus” by 2026 if changes are not made.
The number of advisers in Australia shrank below 19,000 late last year and is predicted to reach 13,000 by the end of 2023.
On a special Momentum Media podcast recorded prior to the federal election, Mr Jones outlined his plans to address the education standards.
“… there’ll be a bunch of people who’ve been providing excellent advice for decades that we don’t want to tip them out of the industry at exactly the time when we need them,” he said.
“We need them as mentors, we need them as service providers, we need them as trainers, we need them in the industry.”
Mr Jones added: “Let’s take a step back and say, ‘Let’s do some recognition of their prior learning and experience, not a Mickey mouse job’. So we’ll do it properly.”
Listen to the full episode with Mr Anderson here.
This is a joke for two reasons.
1. Education is critical to our industry and becoming professional. Having obtained a Master of financial planning and now completed two variations of the same ethical course with a pass on the FASEA exam I can put my hand on my heart and say it was rather easy. I have 17 years experience. Any one who obtained their CFP when it first came out is still considered a joke for the very fact that they didn’t have to pass the same level of testing. It allowed sub standard advisers to operate. We can’t allow that to happen again.
2. Going forward the Politian’s have to stop interfering. Financial advisers that are qualified and ethical should be allowed to go about their business without constant interference and changing of the goals posts.
Ridiculous … the FASEA exam was a piece of cake. Finished with an hour to spare. If you are running a professional practice it should be simple as. Diluting education standards will never make this a profession . like giving CFP to people just because they had ‘experience’ .. now no education if 10 years experience writing risk ???
Diluting education standards? Not what they are doing. The existing new standards will continue to apply for all new entrants. What they are saying, is there is no need to do pointless study for those that have been actively providing good advice in the industry for over 10 years, without issue.
If I could have a surgeon with the latest courses all completed and a year of experience or a surgeon with over 10 years of experience in the same area with never any issues, I’d certainly go with experience.
We have heaps of new advisers enter our business and the lack of experience is notable. We certainly don’t want to kick experience out of the industry. I can think of quite a few historical examples where this has happened and never to benefit.
I agree 100% … by the way I had 1 and half hours to spare after finishing FASeA lol
If you have a University Degree “A Master of Financial Planning” why is it necessary to sit for the FASEA exam?
because the exam is nothing to do with competence – it is more to do with bringing people to heal. Or maybe it was to do with demonstrating what an embarrassing job of what not to do. As a professional accredited trainer in a former life – that exam was destructive, divisive, lacked coherence, and patently failed to address the differing needs of advisers in whatever stage of their career they might be in.
If Ethics and Professionalism was included in your masters then you won’t have to do the ethics and professionalism bridging course.
So those associated with universities and education, who were involved in the design of FASEA, are able to flog more of their courses. You don’t need to pass the FASEA exam to identify this conflict of interests.
If you have passed the exam, have the experience and other studies completed remove the ethics unit which is a complete money grab and waste of time. Passing the exam should be enough.
Exactly!
Why are we still waiting??
For those of us that bit the bullet, jumped in and did the required education (or majority of it) before Jones played politics some compensation for business cost, opportunity cost and family cost will be expected.
Bad luck buddy.
Education is always worthwhile so I don’t see any downside for you on this. I do however, see a downside for guys that are just as smart but do not do well in formal study. And before you ask I qualify and have a double masters in other disciplines.
education is not always worthwhile – if it is not properly targeted and demonstrably of value. You might be thinking of training – which is entirely different things.
TP’s comment “…I can put my hand on my heart and say it was rather easy. I have 17 years experience.” shows that the value add to an experienced practitioner for this education was reasonably low and most probably a waste of time and money, so experience should have relevance in the determination of the profession.
You will be laughing because there is no way the Green’s are passing this law. The Liberals will find a reason to disagree with the ALP and anyone who trusted the ALP will be exiting at the end of 2026.
The Greens don’t need to pass it, nor anyone else for that matter. Jones’ proposal involves using the discretionary capabilities in the law that has already been passed. The same discretionary capabilities that FASEA abused to favour the commercial interests of its Board members, and led to the mess we have now.
Clearly Dan’s comment is a prime example of the reality of this education. It holds no value beyond ticking a box.
Get rid of the requirement to do the ridiculous Ethics Bridging course while you’re at it.
I have already done it. Quite a bit of work I must say.
Already done it. Waiting on result. It was very difficult. Loads of work. But I definitely feel like I benefitted from doing the course itself.
I’m almost a convert in that I do think there are many issues that we financial advisers face daily that could trip us up. Doing the course is kind of like having a better type of watchdog / guard dog that warns you ahead of time to steer clear of certain types of clients or ‘common’ practices.
I always giggle at the so-called ‘advisers’ who don’t have degrees and don’t want to do any further education. Easiest way to win clients when you ask if their current or alternative adviser is degree qualified. Would you see a surgeon who hadn’t gone to medical school?
Degree = Competent? Really? Have you seen Richard Branson’s degree, or Mark Zuckerberg’s? Online Kaplan courses really meaningful study? No face to face learning or peer review. I’d like to see a Doctor go through the same level of compliance to give a medical opinion! I’d also like to see a Doctor accept being told to be proficient in all fields of medicine, and to be told to return to university so they are competent in all medical specialties. Just my opinion.
Wow. An arrogant, ill informed view if ive ever read one.
Funny thing is as a 20 odd year adviser i dont have to “Win” clients. In fact I dont even advertise.
You keep doing you though.
How supercilious of you, I can guarantee I have better quals than you and I certainly don’t look down on anyone who hasn’t been to uni. If you knew anything about experience you would also realise that anyone who has been in the industry for 10 years or more, has met those educational requirements as well as maintained their required annual training, are every bit as competent in there chosen field, as you purport to be.
I do have a degree. A FASEA approved one actually that I obtained in 2006 before it was a ‘requirement’. However for some reason I need to do an ethics course. Even though it was covered off at Uni and again during my CFP studies. Total waste of time and money.
You’re actually quite lucky if FASEA approved your degree in full. Many of us are having to repeat parts of ours.
Same here. Graduated with one of the early financial planning major undergrad degrees and it was ticked off by FASEA. I’m in two minds about the ethics unit and am not so arrogant to think I wouldn’t learn anything from it. My issue is time to retirement.
Will I have to do an ethics unit for maybe 2 or 3 more years of practice at best ? And I get really annoyed people that shit-can f formal education. The best thing I ever did was my degree and if anything I learned one really important thing. The more you know, the more you realise what you don’t know..
I would see a surgeon with over 10 years of experience and no complaints raised over one that has 10 degrees and little to no experience any day of the week. I’ve completed various degrees and diploma’s over the years and whilst in some areas the technical knowledge is important, it pales to the expertise gained from actually doing something.