In a new opinion piece published on ifa, Synchron’s new general manager – compliance, Phil Osborne, echoed a sentiment shared by many in the industry that if changes are not made to the requirement the industry will lose more advisers.
“We are concerned that if we do not provide this exemption, the industry may lose even more advisers and the knowledge and experience that are so necessary for mentoring the next generation of advisers will go with them,” Mr Osborne wrote.
“This loss will impact those entering the industry under the new terms seeking mentors for their professional year.”
He added that younger advisers having access to mentors with many years of experience will play a vital role in their future success.
“We must also learn from the FASEA exam experience and not mistreat those longer-serving advisers who helped build the industry, and who have provided Australians with good quality advice that has helped them achieve their financial goals for creating wealth and protecting their families,” he wrote.
“Advisers in the twilight of their careers should be afforded respect and allowed to depart their businesses on their own terms. We should be celebrating their experience and taking it into account, not implementing change for the sake of change.”
Mr Osborne’s comments come just days after the Financial Planning Association of Australia (FPA) said the “one size fits all framework” implemented by FASEA has not worked issued in its submission to Treasury on the Education Standards for Financial Advisers policy paper.
Read the full opinion piece here.
Just completed the latest Fasea Exam July 2022. What a shocker the questions are becoming more ambiguous and i just can not believe that this exam will be the result i am chucked out of the business. Never had a complaint in 30 years but just fail one silly, childish, bookworm test and you are hopeless.
Studied hard but the questions were crazy. If i had studied for 100 hours more it would not make a difference.
I would like to see what a police sergeant would say if he had to sit an exam for his career.
It like kicking out a great doctor because they test him on his bed side manner.
Good luck to those that have passed but don’t kick the ones that haven’t, like me we have tried but failed an exam.
The 8 out of ten passed, sounds like we are dopes but probably only 65% of AR’s from 2 years ago have actually passed because many did not sit even.
I found myself yelling when i read the answer, the questions were all right and not even technical you had to guess between 3 and 4 in some cases, great way to determine your career.
Like going to war don’t expect the admin boffins to back you up.
There job is safe they only check that their pay landed in their bank account each week from the government.
It reminds me of a great quote
There we were 2 verses 200 but i was alright i was in the 200.
All the advisors who have passed maybe show a bit more support for those that have not.
Maybe you are in the 200 and it does not matter.
See what magic i can create in 3 months.
Embarrassed to say I’m an adviser until all the old mentality has been pushed out the door. At that point I can tell clients I’m truly proud of our industry, that we are all educated and qualified academically , like a true profession should be.
Right now all participants in this Industry are more divided than the left and right of U.S. politics. Competitors to our Industry are just sitting back at a bar laughing as they watch us destroy ourselves fighting.
Keep on talking about education standards and ignore the elephant in the room. New entrants versus the numbers leaving……….and bear in mind those leaving make up the majority of those employing.
Those fully educated wanting to remove those 50+ that arent (even if they are blemish free over decades) feel as though a utopia awaits for them under a supply/demand basis……newsflash – there arent any more hours in a day to see more and more clients and clients wont magically have more money to pay higher costs.
Be careful what you wish for.
“Those leaving make up most of those employing” – You cant be serious? Anyone who’s business is robust enough to have a workforce, is robust enough to manage the completion of a few little subjects. Those leaving are the lone planners living in the 90’s who can’t be bothered knocking over a few units, or who are not capable of learning new things due to their fixed mindset. Good riddance. I dont want them teaching tomorrows advisers. Neither should the regulators nor the public.
I find the comment re the FASEA exam experience mistreating longer-serving advisers confusing. It was the same test for everyone, realistically anyone with a basic understanding of financial planning and the legislative environment we work within and who did one of the courses offered by the various entities seeking to make money off the experience should have passed the exam the first time without any difficulty. Given they had more than 2 years to manage it I can’t see how “long-term advisers” were mistreated.
The fact that some people didn’t do the exam because they were experienced and therefore thought it was beneath them is a sad reflection on those people and is being repeated by people who are not prepared to do the necessary study to stay a financial planner and increase the perception of financial planners.
Realistically Synchron has a higher number of “long term advisers” and they want to make sure their licensee fee’s continue to be paid by as many people as possible, even if this is to the detriment of other financial planners.
It should have read “mistreating advisers with a fixed mindset who are unwilling or unable to learn new things and put in some effort for the betterment of their industry”
Grandfathering of Adviser Educational Requirements should have always been the way forward. Asking every Adviser to have the same requirements is madness. The madness continues to play out. This common-sense way forward was not even a thought bubble for those who thought they knew best.
People have voted they want change
Mr Osbourne is another that seems to not understand the position for existing advisers (of any age). No existing adviser needs to go out and do a full Degree. Recognition has been provided for existing advisers and two-thirds of the coursework has been cut out of a 24 subject degree.
At worst existing advisers have to do a max of 8 subjects in a Grad Diploma, and that’s for those who have the bare minimum quals of a 4 subject Diploma… Anyone else should get further concessions to reduce the workload required to meet the new education standards.
I thought the times of getting your quals from a box of cornflakes were over, but it seems that plenty are happy to retain a system where the minimum quals are accepted & everyone gets a ribbon and a ticket to play….
Personal Advice can be delivered by a product manufacturer employing anyone to provide Intra Fund Advice paid for via a fee to members with no requirement for BID, opt in, provide a service? What makes a Financial Planner with a degree so good?
Financial planners with degrees are more likely to know the law. They are more likely to know that product company employees who aren’t licensed advisers can only legally give general advice, not personal advice. Financial planners with degrees are also more likely to know that the reason union super fund sales and call centre staff routinely get away with providing personal advice is due to ASIC bias, rather than the law.
One of the silver linings of FASEA is that advisers are now more aware of the law, and are consequently more aware of the lies told by their licensees, and the bias exhibited by ASIC.
The degree is only one element which needs to be fixed in financial planning. It definitely is not the most important but having someone who can be considered qualified with a diploma is a joke.
100% John. If we want to professionalise the industry at a minimum there must be educational requirements that everyone must adhere to. One rule for the whole industry. Not one rule for old advisers and another for others. Go be a mortgage broker if you don’t agree with this
I have been in the industry for 30 years and employ 15 people….
I had 8 subjects to complete… completed 7 to date.
I had the FASEA exam to do…did the third sitting and passed first time…some of the test questions were relevant some weren’t.
They gave us all an extension….and to be honest I’ve actually quite enjoyed a lot of the learning…
We are currently buying another large practice and will bring on 4 new highly qualified staff…
We currently have two advisors going through their professional year…great young advisors (25&27) with amazing work ethic, extremely mature, good education (still needed to do 4 subjects and FASEA) and an amazing client first focused attitude….They and others in our team will be the future of our industry. I’m proud to work with them!
I think our industry wont just survive but will thrive…
I think because of these changes especially with the banks leaving (massive product sales culture forced upon advisors) the industry will become far more professional in the eyes of the consumer…
I believe that these implemented changes will eventually help cut the red tape plaguing the advice industry…
The perception seems to be the people, dealer groups and industry bodies jumping up and down and refusing to grow the industry into the amazing profession it is becoming, have a huge vested and conflicted financial interest for nothing to change….look at the demographics of Syncron and the AIOFP advisors…. made up of a lot of people my age, simply refusing to move forward…..and help make this industry better…..and i don’t think many of these advisors are taking on younger advisors and mentoring them in their professional year any way, so not a great argument….
I’m so extremely proud of our profession….
That is great commentary and obviously about elevating our industry in the eyes of the public and the various governing bodies. Introducing yet another grandfathered group will do no more than hold back our evolution.
Seriously what must outsiders, which includes exisiting and potential clients, think about an industry that resists change so much. I think you hit the nail on the head “huge vested and conflicted financial interests”, And I’ll add, hiding behind the pretence of client care.
Vertical integration raises its ugly head again…..and again….and again.
Well said good sir. Gives me comfort having fellow advisers like you in our profession.
This is a dead horse… The same advisers fought tooth and nail to water down / grandfather clients from the original FOFA back in 2012. If we had implemented that we wouldn’t be here today….. And I have been doing this job for 20 years, have CFP 1 – 5, but without a degree (so I need to do the study) and I own a business etc.
Everyone should adhere to the same rules. If i was a client i would feel comfortable knowing that the adviser who has this exemption actually is qualified and accredited to give me advice. Experience is vital but so is being part of an industry with current knowledge and skills. We need to stop confusing the consumer. If everyone adviser is under one regulatory regime then it is only fair that all adviser have the same entry requirements. No more concessions for political posturing.
Well said Sam.
Most advice delivered in Australia will be via Intra Fund Advice – so your qualifications will not be needed – how do you feel about that?
I’m sorry if your place in the financial planning world is focused on competing with Industry Funds delivering intra fund advice. No disrespect, but I’d rather concentrate on helping those who want and need my advice – not those caught up in the mire of that in which you speak.
How many Advisers working actively today, have not passed the FARSEA exam ?
How many Advisers working actively today, are not willing to FARSEA upskill ?
Lets get some correct numbers for reality context.
If I was 55 to 60 and told to go to Uni I would be really angry, there is simply not the time left in most of their careers to have a decent cost / benefit return on the highly theoretical Uni courses.
Yet more “its all about me” perspective. Why should the public or the rest of the profession care about the mentality of these people who are fighting the changes when their only argument is based on self-interest
Dealer Groups are part of the problem.
I think the industry recognises acknowledging experience in some form for advisers. However what is proposed currently for the experience pathway means an adviser under the age of 30 could qualify currently. This adviser may have 30 plus years left in the industry. I dont think this is the true intention of an experience pathway, so it needs to be considered somewhat before being finalised
STOP! Its over – the rules were mad some time ago – people had time to respond.
PLEASE – move on.
This industry does my head in – daily!!
Yes,the rules ARE mad
If these advisers are so experienced and know everything there is to know about financial planning, why don’t they just sit the exams and pass them and get their degrees….Or maybe they do need to take the time to learn modern practices and not just rely on what they were doing back at the turn of the century in order to get their degrees and show they are competent. Can we just grow up as a industry and accept we are now a profession and be must be degree qualified. .
Tricia, The degree has nothing to do with knowledge. I have sacked advisers with Degrees, as they could not apply it and knew nothing.
I am 58 and why would I want to go study for the next 4 year and have no life just to get a piece of paper to keep working another few years.
Professionalism is not about having some letters after your name.
[b]You narrow view of older advisers is insulting……[/b]
I agree! WITH TRICIA.
You’re no going to have to study for the next 4 years because I’m sure, as a professional in this industry, you will already be well progressed in the required study.
I completely disagree ’20+ year’ veteran. If we want to be recognised as a profession similar to the likes of an accountants then education is essential. We can’t have rules for some and not others. Go finish your days as a mortgage broker. Let’s be honest it is your cohort of advisers that the ‘bad apples’ seem to come from. I am not including you or everyone from this. Why are they bad apples? Because they were brought up when Fact Finds were completed on a napkin and many filled their pockets first. How many advisers who are in their 20s, 30s or have been in the industry more say 7 or less years offend in such a way – close to never.
”Let’s be honest it is your cohort of advisers that the ‘bad apples’ seem to come from.”
I think you need to do some research. You’ll find the majority of advisers who’ve been sanctioned by ASIC or the courts in the last few years were under the age of 55, working for or had worked for institutions such as banks & AMP, & were degree qualified. If you want to look further (AFCA Data Cube I’d suggest) you’ll find there are very few complaints about advisers (less than 2% of all complaints) & that is the long term historical average according to AFCA/FO data. Which begs the question, where are all the ”bad apples” & why have advisers been targeted?
Now those advisers are with non bank dealer groups or self licenced
Spot On
As is your view of advisers with degree’s. An equal playing field is needed, which means you need a degree.
Learn modern practices? I may have to learn how to type to be modern, but experience comes from many millions of conversations with many clients over many years, we have done countless subjects, as they have become available. There wasnt even a degree to speak of 10 years ago, but there was very good advice given then and much better advice given now by experienced Advisers than the 23 year olds coming out of Uni with a Degree and zero knowledge on how to have a conversation.
Just like the car sales industry
actually there was a bachelor degree 10 years ago with a major in financial planning as well as a masters of financial planning
+1 to this. RMIT had a Financial Planning degree in 1998 and I earnt my MFin Plan in 2007.
I feel for older advisers in this position, however what’s the point in transitioning to a profession if older advisers don’t adhere to the same rules as everyone else? Especially considering the average age would be over 50 based on people that show up to development days. Either stick to the rules for everyone or scrap the whole thing!
Only the big dealer groups are worried about FASEA. The truth is that only the product pushers need to be worried and well they should be. Who would go to a product issuer and pay a fee for advice? It is like going to a Toyota dealer and paying a fee to be told which Toyota is the best one for my needs!
It is actually the one man bands who are worried about fasea. Not the dealer groups as u say.
100% agree re the one man bands. The future is practices with critical mass to adapt and invest. Having said that there is also another group of larger practices staffed by well qualified, educated client focussed advisers but owned by “10+ years” advisers who don’t have what it takes to study. This is an industry where for some it has been far too easy for far too long to make far too much money.
Id suggest you cast that one eye to the small players where white label product badges are done for retained margin.
we still going on about this…. 🙄
I agree with this to some extent:
“Advisers in the twilight of their careers should be afforded respect and allowed to depart their businesses on their own terms. We should be celebrating their experience and taking it into account, not implementing change for the sake of change.”
I don’t think this has much merit:
“This loss will impact those entering the industry under the new terms seeking mentors for their professional year.”
The majority of advisers who remain, have met the education requirements & passed FASEA, and I have no doubt that a significant proportion of those are absolutely experienced & well-placed to guide new entrants into the industry.
Not to mention, many of the ‘older advisers’ saw the writing on the wall about 5 years ago, and started making arrangements to do the extra units of study so that they could meet the new standards.
Or maybe they should just have had a structured transfer out when all this was being announced 5 years ago instead of waiting until the last minute. Would you trust someone with your financial affairs if they didn’t even manage their own livelihood correctly?
Rear vision mirror expert.