In its Education Standards for Financial Advisers policy paper, released on Thursday (16 December), the government has proposed a pathway that streamlines the minimum education requirements and recognises on-the-job experience for individuals with 10 or more years of full-time experience.
Namely, under the proposal, individuals who have 10 or more years of full-time experience as a financial adviser in the last 12 years would only need to complete a tertiary level unit of the Code of Ethics in order to continue providing financial advice.
The pathway, termed “experience pathway”, also asks for the eligible individuals to have a “clean record” prior to 1 January 2026, meaning no sanctions from the Financial Services and Credit Panel (FSCP), excluding warnings.
Existing financial advisers or new entrants who do not meet the requirements under the “experienced pathway” would, however, need to complete a bachelor’s degree or higher with at least eight units in a related field of study in any combination.
“Units must either be at bachelor’s (AQF7), graduate diploma (AQF8) or master’s (AQF9) level. Existing providers continue to have until 1 January 2026 to complete any required units,” the policy paper reads.
New entrants will, however, be able to seek recognition of prior learning in a related field of study as part of completing their bachelor’s degree or higher qualification.
“For advisers who were listed on the Financial Advisers Register at any time between 1 January 2016 and 1 January 2019 but who do not qualify for the experience pathway, two units may be substituted with the completion of a course or program that is listed in FASEA’s Approved Recognition of Prior Learning List,” the government said.
It also clarified that it would not accredit individual degrees or subjects to ensure they meet the requirements to be an approved degree.
“Higher education providers offering bachelor’s degrees or higher qualifications are responsible for ensuring their courses meet the relevant requirements.
“Financial advisers undertaking any education must self-assess that they meet the relevant education requirements.
“The new single disciplinary body, the FSCP, which commences from 1 January 2022, will perform an important role in ensuring that correct self-assessment is robustly enforced within the profession,” the government explained.
It noted that “these education requirements are the minimum requirements” and that many advisers have and will in future undertake study above and beyond the minimum baseline to gain additional knowledge and expertise.
“The government recognises that industry associations, licensees and the professional community should, and do, play a vital role in reinforcing the value of qualifications and education above government-mandated levels across the industry,” it added.
The government is welcoming submissions to this consultation until 1 February 2022.
Shame on the LNP for this pathetic backflip. I cannot believe the amount of planners out there who think they should be entitled to practice without a degree. Shame on you for putting your self interest ahead of the profession.
If you think Hume isn’t out to decimate the advice industry you will be in for a shock. She wants everything digital and will push hard to get it.
I would have no issues studying any course with any institution whatsoever if required by the government…IF the courses offered through universities and other institutions actually taught useful, practical information that would help with the job and clients. As they currently stand though, university level accounting teaches nothing more advanced than secondary school accounting. And neither provide you with sufficient education to actually practice as an accountant – actually nothing more than a bookkeeper. Financial Planning and Investments/Markets courses teach even less. There shouldn’t be the need for a piece of paper just to say you have a piece of paper, especially when you learn so much more on the job. And no course, NO course will teach someone how to be ethical or responsible. It’s only in the minds of out of touch, inexperienced, under-qualified public servants and lawyers who think any differently.
Just because you have a piece of paper that says your qualified does not mean you know how to do the job. I have sacked a few adviser that have the degree but could not think for themselves. I will take proven knowledge and experience of a qualified person everyday.
I was ceasing as an adviser in 2026 because I don’t won’t to waste 4 years of my life just to get this piece of paper, and I will be 62 then, why would I ?
I will be 63 at that time. Luckily I saw the writing in the wall and made sure I added the standard ‘exams’ to my B.Com degree. I’ve only the Ethics exam to do (already did an ethics module with my FCHFP) so it’s a bit of a repeat. Had Inti do the entire degree over – I’d not have bothered but rather chosen to retire.
Perhaps those advisers you sacked should have been required to pass a Professional Year to demonstrate they could think for themselves and do the job?
The FASEA Standards, for all their many faults, require education AND experience AND adherence to a Code of Ethics. All those complainers saying education doesn’t substitute for experience or make you ethical, are missing the point. All three are required to be seen as a profession by regulators and the media. It is not enough to have only one or two of those three elements.
I’ve done +20 years in this INDUSTRY and have no issue with the 2021 nor 2026 education deadlines, because I understand the need to evolve into a recognised profession, at all costs. The Public and we, deserve nothing less.
If I know one thing about advisers in our industry it is this…”we are the most resilient, adaptable and collaborative network working this big island”. Darwin says it is not the strongest that survive, but those able to adapt the fastest. We have been forged by steel and fire having endured a thousand lashes of regulation then forced to swim through rivers of salt and shit.
A line has been drawn in the sand and NOW is the time to stand up, unite and do what needs to be done, for the sake of the financial planning family and the Consumers we are here to serve. Let us not yield and split over political expediency. We must take the high path forward!
For all you older advisers resisting the degree equivalent, no one doubts your experience or professionalism. And yes, if we were in another industry, we might have benefited from Grand Fathering….but the plague of historic scandals means we must now pay for the collective sins of our past and this is the cross we have been tasked to collectively bear.
To Mr Johnstone and his supporters…I respect you greatly and empathise with you. But this is the time to put the Public Trust and our future Profession before our own suffering and do what needs to be done.
I’m certain that anyone who turns their mind to getting it done will succeed and there’s a myriad of support available from the financial planning family.
And if one decides “it’s all too hard”…then 2026 is far enough away to set ones dignified retirement date.
I had a planner, who has been in the industry for 6 years, which I don’t know, call me up a few months ago. He was referred to me as I have been a planner for 32 years (Yes CFP & MBA, plus other dips).
His question, what is / how does a Whole of Like work as he is going to recommend cashing it in and transfer the proceeds into Super.
I asked him if he thought of making it paid up and change to mature in 5 years to max the terminal bonuses.
The line went dead for 10 seconds, he said he had no idea what I was talking about….
There would be plenty of highly experienced planners who don’t know the intricacies of WOL products. Just as there are planners who aren’t familiar with public sector DB super, or derivatives, or exotic platforms. This is neither an education nor an experience issue. It’s more of a “know your own limitations” issue, and being prepared to tell clients you can’t help them if their situation requires specialist knowledge you don’t have.
I wonder how many whole of life policies there are still in existence??
Plenty! I get them turning up all the time in new client’s portfolios.
Make paid up and mature in 5 yrs is always one option explained to clients.
Education is personal empowerment. For all those that have completed the graduate diploma or masters to enhance their capabilities, congratulations, you will have the opportunity to enhance your client service model with your newly acquired skills. For those of us that have not, that did not have the time or the belief that they would not necessarily be better served or were waiting until later, will be left with the self-assessment decisions surrounding advice provided.
For those of us that have pounded the pavement over the years and that have continued to develop and advance their required skillset through years of continued education, via CPD activities, it comes as a relief that some level of sanity exists.
With the downfall of the banks as advice providers, the role of non-aligned licensees has had to evolve quite dynamically. The progression within these groups particularly in the cases where there is no conflict with regard to ownership (that is between the licensee and the advice providers) there is nowhere to conceal poor advice
[quote=Alex]Having done the hard yards, running my own business, family and managing to do a Master degree to meet the new requirements. I think it is a bit of a kick in the face to the people that have done the work to now be told, you know what this requirement is no longer required. The advisers that don’t want to do the hard work, just need to move on and leave the professionals to get on with the leading the industry forwards.[/quote]
Agree
What next???? Stop messing with our lives
I have been an adviser for 20 years. Running my own independent business for 15 of them. I am doing the Grad Dip FP. Yes its a lot of work and hard. But I can honestly say I am a better adviser because of it.
If you dont want to do the work to improve yourself and the industry – GET OUT – and leave the rest of us to become a “profession”
or a more accurate headline might read “LNP Govt reacts to Labor’s policy and matches it”
I have some predictions to make if anyone is interested. I’ve watched the industry during my tenure as a risk adviser with an analytical viewpoint for 36 years. I say the following will be true by at least 2027 and in full effect:
1) Life companies for the first time in Australia will be seen to fail [i]en masse[/i]. The only things protecting clients will be the statutory funds. These funds have a limited lifetime and capacity to protect. Massive law suits after that unless legislation is enacted to protect them (like was done for Covid drug companies – no liability) Of course, the reinsurers will attempt to help but it will be a world wide effect so, sadly, they will be overwhelmed.
2) Risk advisers across Australia will only number in the hundreds, if that. Risk advisers cannot charge a fee for service as has been proven many times in many ways. It is past debate. With commissions so low, charge-backs of 2 year responsibility for work done(!) and lapse rates through the roof due to unfathomable and opaque premium increases, 90%++ of dedicated risk advisers will have left their once great industry.
3) Investment advisers (including financial planners) will walk away from any risk advice unless the fees can be included with a HNW client’s other fees. These people will do the business for life companies but not take commissions due to clawback provisions worse than the current 2 years. If a fee cannot be charged in with the investment advice then these advisers will not go anywhere near risk advice. This is happening even now but will increase markedly.
4) Government will desperately try to wind back the risk advice changes to have commissions back up near 100%, 1 year clawbacks and reduced compliance. It will be too late as there will be zero experience left in the risk adviser force. Policies will, as a result, become commodities like car insurance with less care in implementation so claims (unadvised) will be very difficult to make (online only of course with faceless young kids), perhaps except for death policies.
Having done the hard yards, running my own business, family and managing to do a Master degree to meet the new requirements. I think it is a bit of a kick in the face to the people that have done the work to now be told, you know what this requirement is no longer required. The advisers that don’t want to do the hard work, just need to move on and leave the professionals to get on with the leading the industry forwards.
100% what he said
While I feel for you, Alex, the kick in the face came when they gave zero credit for 25 years of CPD. I’ll learn nothing of value to my clients doing a degree, but they’ll be the ones paying for it. The government may have gone too soft, now, but they needed to do something to stem the adviser exodus
Wayne, you will likely get RPL if you have 25 years experience as an Adviser, so you would only need to do 3 or 4 subjects instead of 8.
Again another person saying they need to do a degree….no adviser already on the FAR needs to do a degree to stay. If you’re as good as you say you are, so experienced & all, then you should only need to do 4-6 subjects which should be a snack for you…
How do you know you won’t learn anything of value to your clients? that is the type of closed minded attitude that is rife in our INDUSTRY
Totally agree Alex. there are plenty of other Occupations out there that either require a Tertiary degree or don’t that people can chose to do.
The time and money I have spent doing the right thing has not been significant and I want to know if this gets through who is to refund me the cost of my studies that I was told I had to do?
This was forced upon me, and to now say “oh hang on” you didn’t need to do it is a Joke.
My view has always been that with all the unit exemptions for previous studies that there should also have been an exemption for experience. Something like 1 unit for over 10 years, 2 units for over 20 years and 3 units for over 3 years.
Everyone needs to show some intent to do the studies required to continue in the industry is my view.
This is just a thought…
If, post 2026, a financial planning business comes up for sale and the adviser was degree qualified versus non-degree qualified, will this make a difference to the sales price?
Given all the arguing about having or not having degrees, I’d expect that the bulk of remaining industry participants will be degreed…so, won’t market forced then determine the appropriate value of these businesses.
If people with degrees feel the running of the business and, indeed the advice, of the experienced 10 year plus adviser is not up to scratch they can refuse to pay the asking price of the business. Will there be a two tier valuation system for these businesses in a future financial planning world?
There already is a tiered valuation system based on the quality of the business and the potential risks within
It’s already two tiered. Real advisers/advice and industry funds.
The LNP should be ashamed, how many advisers have left the industry or sold businesses only for the LNP to now panic and back flip? At least be consistent.
Like any other profession of equivalent standing, higher education must underpin it. If I’ve been conducting surgery for 10 years on my farm animals I don’t just suddenly get awarded the title of Vetenarian.
Bravo
Completely idiotic argument. Vet’s who qualified 20 plus years ago are not asked to return to University – even if their original qualifications look nothing like that of a current Vet Course (updated as things change).
Difference is that Vets would have been qualified 20 years ago with a degree, not a 4 day course…
Brilliant strategy from Labor.
With advisers divided and fighting, who wins?
The industry funds of course!
So many who are so self interested and so short sighted…
Bang on
This could well be our defining moment. We have a chance to take the easy road, but what better way to prove to all stakeholders and the Australian Public that we really are a profession, than to turn down an offer of an easy ‘out’ that benefits us over everyone else, and CHOOSE instead to take the higher road, as, in my humble opinion, any true profession would.
This proposed experience pathway is fantastic news!
I have a Bachelor of Commerce Majoring in Economics & Finance and have been advising my clients for over 10 years. Under the FASEA standard I have to complete 4 units that I could probably write the course book on. I have never enjoyed online or class room learning, as I am a hands on learner. I strongly beleive the 3 additional units I have to complete under the FASEA standards will be a big waste of both my and my client’s time.
Exactly HA. I too have completed lots of high quality uni level education long before it was compulsory, and have been outraged that conflicted course providers on the FASEA Board have deemed most of my training worthless, in order to generate more fee paying students for third rate courses like theirs.
I welcome the “experience pathway” as a workaround to FASEA’s conflicted and inappropriate RPL policy.
There are plenty who don’t have your qualifications
I wonder why you need to do any extra study at all with your quals???
A brilliant opportunity now for one of the other FP associations to stand up for professionalism.
This proposal is bulldust. If I’m feeling angry, I’m sure there are many others too.
This is now a call to action. Time to mobilise those who care about building a profession to stand up against this crap.
if the fpa doesnt do everything in its power to shut this down im out for good.
Great 1 less competitor for the rest of us
So you potentially have the scenario here where you have advisers that didn’t finish high school giving advice to clients on their life savings, under the experience exemption. Then the rest of the industry will have university degrees. Big marketing opportunity for the section of the advice industry with tertiary qualifications. It should be made clear to clients, which of these sections of the advice industry they are getting their advice from. I know where the majority of the clients will seek their advice. Someone needs to ensure the politicians, that keep coming up with these ideas, stop getting on the sauce before noon.
No. And if they have, and have a clean track record, so be it. They are obviously doing the right thing by their clients. Why don’t you actually ask them??
Great news!
for the poor advisers amongst us, of course.
Someone has obviously lobbied very hard for this to happen. Whoever did is clearly not interested in the industry becoming a profession.
It will never be a profession similar to accountants and lawyers as long as product recommendation/sales is involved.[color=red][/color]
This is just a disgrace to have gone on for so long to have the rules changed as a vote catching opportunity.. Can u ever believe anything this Gov’t has to say ! Mike Gehde
What a dog’s breakfast. All for Labor to win a few votes from a subset of old-timers (AIOFP) leading into an election. Dinosaurs!
You want confidence in FP? Then stop changing the rules!!!
Finally !! Very sensible, but way too late for those who have already started or completed their degree pathway, at their own expense of both time and money. This will allow for experienced planners to leave the industry more gradually rather than a mass exodus, which would dilute the value of everyone’s business.
Those more experienced planners have years of education behind them, and life/time experience is worth so much more than a piece of paper! Just to disclose, I have the full 8 subject diploma with 2 year CFP, SMSF qualifications, Gearing and ML certificate, part way through my degree requirements, and always completed 60 hrs plus CPD hours, so not short on education. I have been in the industry as a planner for 23 years, and 5 years before that in the industry itself. For me, to finish degree subjects just to work a few more years as a planner is ridiculous .
Appreciate everyone is passionate about this subject. However, in my view, this is a measured response to the crises facing financial planning as an essential service. We have a growing population, with a massive need for advice and advisers are exiting the indisutry in droves. Those who have completed extra study, well done, but do not lose sight of that fact that there are far to few to carry out even the basic needs our community has. Exisiting laws, the ongoing compliance regime coupled with the requirement that new entrants have a degree already mean that we have come a long long way in a very short time frame. [b]The profession will continue to evolve but like all major changes it needs to be measured and given an appropriate time frame[/b].
2026 is an appropriate timeframe
I’m sorry but obviously its not, if it was we wouldn’t be having this debate.
And what is the suggested timeframe, another 10 years, 20?. This increase in education standards started in 2012 and people don’t have to get it finished by 2026!
Again I am sorry but these standards to practice were not clear in 2012, initially it was the ADFP, then the CFP program or FCHFP were being pushed. The deadline of 2026 and the associated degree / Grad Dip was only mentioned once FASEA was established in 2017/18, and they took an eternity to clearly articulate what the standard should be and even longer to come up with the content for the adviser exam. The process has been a shambles. Australians already have a lack of access to advice, there is only a trickle of new entrants, the problem needs to be addressed in a measured way because of this inbalance. Those who have already gone out and got themselves highly qualified should be able to market the difference that their advice can make to people… bearing in mind that education is no guarantee of ethical behaviour – in fact some of the biggest and longest cons have been run by some of our best educated participants – because they knew exactly what they were doing, and neither is the absence of a degree an indicator that advice is somehow flawed. As I stated earlier, the evolution of the profession needs to be handled in the right manner… to date it hasnt been, which is now being acknowledged by both sides of the parliament.
To all those disgruntled with this change, bear in mind, it will allow those long-serving advisers a dignified exit strategy rather than decimating their business value and forcing them out of the industry. The number of these advisers will diminish by natural attrition to leave only you, the puerile and offensive advisers left to ply the industry with a “mightier than thou” attitude!!
There is plenty of time between 2018 and 2026 to make a dignified exit. There will be 30 year-olds who meet the experience threshold. Failure to get educated is typically done (in the absence of extreme compassionate grounds) out of self-interest, laziness and contempt for your clients and “profession”. Calling disgruntlement “puerile” when all we seek is a true profession is truly unprofessional. These poor “experienced” advisers who got fat of decades of commissions and over-priced business valuations propped up by self-interested vertical integration are upset of the commercial and personal realities a profession entails.
Well said KC. Well said. This industry will never progress if this gets up,
Rubbish. A dignified exit? You have until 2026. Plenty of time.
Where is the dignity for the victims uncovered by the Royal Commission? Or the support for Jeff Morris and his two colleagues who blew the whistle at great personal cost?
FASEA is the least we can do to rebuild trust in the community.
Talk about passing the buck!!
If there is going to be an “experience pathway” it should not be 10/12 years..it should be say 25 years to give those “mature” advisers, many of whom have led the way for our industry to retire on their own merits over the next 5-10 years and then everyone else will be fully qualified by then and the clients of those older advisers can retain their relationship with their trusted adviser when they are most in need as they also age gracefully
What a joke and vote grabbing exercise, we will never be considered a profession with decisions like this and be recognised on par with professions such as accounting and legal.
I assume the 10 years will be counted from 1 Jan 26, so someone with 5 years experience today could be grandfathered from an acceptable level of education. what a joke.
When this comes into effect I will have been in this industry for 27 years, I took a break from direct client advising and went in to management including taking on a RM role on a large license for around 5 years.
The timing of this means I will have 9 years and 6 months of “relevant” experience for this “exemption” and won’t be eligible. I would argue that the time I spent managing teams and being an RM made me much more cognisant of my professional responsibilities.
Luckily I already have a degree and only have a few units to go but this is a blight on our industry that the government have backed away from this uplift in standards to pander to a vocal minority.
Similar situation here. Fully support your sentiment!
So you have been an RM in a large licensee despite having minimal relevant education and experience?!?! That’s a whole different problem with our ridiculous system.
Are you serious? By the time I was a Licensee RM I had 13 years experience including being a paraplanner, planner and manager. I had a degree and Advanced Diploma. How is that having minimal experience.
What an absolute disgrace both major political parties are!! Now, rather than the lowest common denominator being removed from the industry, we will instead see a parade of highly skilled, knowledgeable and ethical professionals walkout because professionalisation has given way to political expedience.
Professionalisation is necessary to allow the compliance burdens to be normalised, the status quo will ensure the same advice negligence will prevail.
Under this legislative enhancement, the Degree isn’t being banned or being made redundant. There is nothing stopping you continuing on with your degree subjects. You can still study for your Masters. It’s just that your registration to advise won’t be taken off you if you decide to work on those subjects post Jan 2026. Snap out of it.
This proposal means someone can remain an adviser in the industry indefinitely without ever completing a professional qualification. The squeaky wheel will remain.
Great comment ‘Animal Farm’. People do indeed need to “snap out of it”. Do your precious degrees if it is that important to you but for the humble risk adviser it is fully irrelevant to helping clients but the fools in govt and the ‘elite adviser set’ are insisting everybody do it – or at least govt was until last Wednesday, some sense at last!
What an absolute joke! Far out, may as well just move to Tik-Tok and be done with this rubbish. I feel for the existing Advisers who have already completed their qualifications in the last few years, I am outraged on your behalf.
Funny thing is all these educational requirements/changes wont change a thing to the real problem. Advisor numbers will continue to fall – new entrants are non existent compared to exit numbers and whether you agreed or disagreed with the bank advice model they were the breeding ground for the next gen planners. They had the scope to lose money on thwe kids initially. How many small private firms (there are some) are prepared to absorb the financial cost of the grad year and beyond until the planner becomes revenue positive? Thats the real problem here……not education at all. There will be less than 8000 planners in five years and advice fees will be heading to 10K
Bank advice model, next gen advisers….
Which is (in part) how we ended up with a Royal Commission uncovering thousands of victims and over a billion dollars of detriment.
Open your eyes indeed.
. . . [i]Annndd[/i], all the risk advisers will be gone. Pass the popcorn to watch THIS menagerie when the life companies realize they’ve helped alienate advisers BIGTIME with lower commissions, deplorable new IP contracts and punitive illegal claw-back periods. I’d say the blighters deserve what they get but I’m mindful of the effect on their few remaining policy holders when they go bust. At least we’ll see if the sacrosanct Statutory Funds that back the life pool will stand up to a REAL stress test. Interesting times ahead that nobody is talking about yet . . . just watch!
This doesn’t mean I’m going to reduce my fees.
Why not?
Because out of all the things increasing the cost of advice this element had very little to do with it.
Well that explains the Labor announcement last week. They heard what the Coalition were going to announce…
You’re kidding, right? The Liberals have not been waiting all these years to release this as some perfectly timed strategy. This is purely reactionary and desperate.
WTF… give me back the time and money spent for completing 5 subjects, you have turned my life over the last 3-years to nothing but despair.
Yep half way through the 6th subject now and this backflip. Including the cost of the education there is also cost to income and family and supposedly from a PM that is a family man. This government is a massive joke.
What a joke.
This business will never be taken seriously with the continued back peddling and lowering of the bar.
These proposals are an insult to those older advisors with solid credentials.
Those without should be ousted now.
The govt is only proposing this as they are running scared heading into the election.
This won’t secure my vote, consider everything else they have done to shaft us, degree or no degree.
Terrible. All those advisers who have started doing a degree and now now the Government back flips.
This is quite unbelievable.
Years of battling and this sort of extreme watering down makes a mockery of the professionalism goal.
10 years is just not enough, I agree with experience, but it needs to be 20+, at least pre-GFC periods.
Anyone who understands this blarney please come forward. Is the best we can expect from this dunce of a Minister after the Labor offer
Hate to have 9 years and six months experience. These changes are a joke.
What a massive step backwards for the industry. This doesn’t allow us to be recognised as a profession and will lead to poor consumer outcomes. For those that made a conscious choice not to step up and gain the relevant qualifications, shame on you. Surely there should be restrictions on the scope of advice allowed to be provided by these participants. Leave them in industry funds where they can provided limited advice or change their titles to avoid consumers misconceptions around their capabilities. The government should revisit compliance requirements imposed on insignificant transactions rather than lower education standards.
A much better solution is to have the two tiered approach as you suggest. Many advisors with an established client base really won’t care about being designated as second tier advisors.
I think the degree requirement for highly experienced advisors was a huge mistake in the first place.
But it’s insulting to those who have already paid money and devoted their time to studying so far to then back pedal. Anyway studies are less of an impediment than the massive wall of regulations.
Also, if it is ten years out of twelve up to January 2026 in order to avoid the degree, if the government are hoping to lure back those who have left in the last two years, that’s not going to work, unless they strip out a lot of ridiculous regulations at the same time.
could this be too little too late ? I’m wondering as how many Australians cant access advice ?
I hope the change doesn’t get up. Already committed advisers have dome the required study and yet again the dreadful concept of grandfathering raises its ugly head.
Well, it is obviously going to “get up”. BOTH sides are saying they will do it so it WILL happen one way or ‘tuther. These are the facts. The facts don’t care about our opinions. The facts don’t care what anyone thinks. They just ‘are’ and ‘will be’. Handle it. Yes, I think it is deplorable some advisers have spent $10K++ already on these irrelevant exams and degrees, advisers who would not have done it if not forced to do so. I’d be livid if that was me, happily it isn’t.
Scomo only doing this to stay in power, a lesson learnt from Shorten.
Whilst financial advisers is a small industry, we do look after a lot of clients/voters, and THEY can make the difference.
How many clients are you going to get to vote the way you want them to, based on this issue?
The government have had plenty of time to do this. Heck, they could have done it before they introduced the degree requirement for everyone- even advisers who’d been in the industry for decades.
Too little, too late. #voteLabor
While I stand to benefit, and would prefer not to do further study, it is a backwards step in our goal of becoming a profession – I will continue to finish the Masters
Hang on. I know of many advisers who were booted from licensees but no official bad record. These people will get to stay?
I would hope the enhance reference checking requirements would keep these bad apples out.
Absolutely. As someone previously employed to keep track of Adviser behaviour, I can tell you the employer at the time was into big cover ups. Couldn’t record real concerns if they were big writers, because their immediate manager knew and anything official – on a system specifically designed to capture this information – could impact the advisers reputation…
While I appreciate the idea, and will benefit, I think it’s a backwards step and will continue on to completing my masters.
The “me too” syndrome strikes again. Why now? Why not a year ago? If the Labor party had not announced their similar policy a couple of weeks ago, the Government was sure to loose many thousands of Financial Services affiliated votes. But being the dolts they are, they should have gone for 8 years not 12 to be one better than the opposition. Shows their total ignorance of our fragile industry.
Why doesn’t the government just make a 2 week diploma course as the minimum requirement.
This is exactly what they are endorsing. Absolutely shameful. It’s pretty easy to keep a clean record over 10 years when all you provide is lazily scoped and half-arsed advice.
You have nailed it! I’ve audited 100s of advisers who don’t technically fail but their advice is just what you called it LAZY
This should have been implemented from the beginning. Common sense approach. So much damage has already been done to FP. Madness
Is it election time soon?
astonished and disappointed with this proposal – step up & complete a Grad Dip or give up and leave
Are you honestly a better planner with your Grad Dip? Has it made you realise you shouldn’t have been planning without it? Everyone I know who has one honestly learnt nothing new
Its not about if they’re a better planner personally, but there’s no doubt we are a better collection of planners collectively with higher education standards. Name one profession in the world where practitioners who charge upwards of $400 per hour arent degree qualified?
It looks like the government has finally let common sense prevail for experienced advisers. No doubt this has been bought about by the Labor party announcing last week they would not make experienced advisers do the horrendous tertiary studies to remain in the industry by 2026.
It’s amazing what happens when ‘people make noise’ which then makes you think what a gutless representative body we have in the FPA for doing nothing to fight for this when they had to.
You cannot be serious!!!!!!!
The minute Labor puts the pressure on, the Liberal Govt go after votes following years of pleading from Financial Advisers.
I have never seen such a disgraceful act of treason in all my life.
It shows how fickle and fragile these people are and what they are willing to do when they may lose power.
It makes me sick to the stomach.
A disgrace
What about the FASEA exam will it be scrapped?
I just sat the FASEA exam for the first time and FAILED. Could not do it earlier because of covid and prior to that being hospitalized for 10 weeks with a staph infection. That means that effectively I have to depart the industry after 50 plus years without a complaint ever being recorded against me in all that time. Not against exams but this one is a croc. Note 48% failed. It is not designed to help but to hinder plus your future is on the line. Surely the only PENALTY should be a re education program like they do in China for dissidents.
So the people who have had made the effort to meet the standards get compensated by government for cost and time?? What a circus
I strongly believe they will have to announce some sort of compensation along with the clarification of details. This vote-grabbing nonsense won’t work in their eyes unless they placate those advisers who’ve already been fooled into this irrelevant FARCE-IA exam and so-called [i]AQF8 degree [/i]study.
They just stole Stephen Jones’ policy and changed it to 10 of the last 12 years rather than 10 years. It is common sense though that the experience pathway will be introduced, no doubt it will upset Tim Mackay though, financial plannings answer to the question no body asked.
wow
I’m embarrassed to be an adviser !!!! I spent the last 2 years completing education instead of complaining and Now the industry doesn’t move forward due to political votes and , keeping all the people employed who ruined it in the first place !!!! What a joke !!!!
Really? You think all the people with degrees did none of the bad stuff, and it was all the people without degrees. Really?
Agree. Everyone thinks if they get a degree they are automatically a better adviser, and ethical. The most unethical planner I know passed Fasea straight up, and actually passed further study despite dispensing advice I wouldn’t let my cat follow. Education requirements are overrated, and falsely give consumers confidence that their planner knows what they are doing
How’d you go reporting your concerns to their licensee, as per Standard 12?
Its a disgrace. This industry will never lose its lack of trust from the public. Giving into the advisers who won’t accept change and aren’t willing to invest for the betterment of their clients again. They don’t call in grandfathering for nothing!
More BS!
Is this just giving people false hope or is there some real weight behind this? I already have the 10 years experience and formal education. Having to do further study is just an annoying pain in the butt.
Hope and happiness for those who decided not to implement the FASEA requirements saving themselves time and money, but despair and possible anger for those who decided and are completing the FASEA requirements costing them time and money. What a divisive unsettling mess!
Feel sorry for those older planners that made the decision to not sit FASEA (or make little effort to prepare for the exam) because they didn’t see themselves going back to Uni only to have the government change things again. How is anyone supposed to plan when our leaders change their minds every 2 minutes.
Or sold their business!
I dont.
This is a slap in the face to us in our late 50s who decided to take the additional education pathway. Why wait till now? I’m sick to death of the constant to and fro –
What a slap in the face for all the advisers who committed to the time and cost of achieving the current requirements. Will they be compensated for going beyond these expectations ? Time to make financial planning a profession.
so what happpens to advisers that have already left – can we come back..?
About time!! Also, condolences to those advisers that stepped up and done all their education requirements already. Here is a big middle finger to you from the govt.
The precedent was already set by not giving reasonable credit to advisers who stepped up and did their higher education years ago, before it was compulsory. At least those well educated advisers can now tick the “experience” box, as a workaround to not having their qualifications recognised by the conflicted course floggers on the FASEA Board.
So having completed 3 modules, currently studying a 4th, and one more to go (with 5 RPLs) at about $1,500 per module, can I get my money back?
This is a disgrace.
…so I’ve just completed (and paid for) 5 of the 6 units in an effort to have this all wrapped up by mid 2022. What a waste of time and money – so much for getting ahead of the curve.
Some sense starting to prevail