On 30 August, assistant minister for superannuation, financial services and financial technology Jane Hume announced an extension of the deadline for advisers to complete the FASEA exam (one additional year) and meet FASEA’s qualification requirements (two years).
However, these extensions are not set in stone and still need the approval of parliament, according to Hamilton Wealth Management CEO and managing partner Will Hamilton.
“It has only been proposed,” Mr Hamilton explained on an upcoming episode of The ifa Show.
“Labor has said this isn’t right and they have tied it to the royal commission and they are talking along the lines of it eroding the protection of consumers for another two years,” he said. “One is presuming they will vote against these extensions.
“I think as an industry we need to be onto our politicians. Not just the government – Labor ministers and the crossbench as well. This has to get through for the industry. It is crucial to get through.”
Mr Hamilton said the two-year extension to meet FASEA’s qualification requirements is essential for advisers that are required to complete multiple subjects while also raising a family and running a business.
“I only need to do three subjects plus the FASEA exam. For those that have to do six or eight subjects and have a young family and are running a business, I just think it was an unrealistic timeframe. A two-year extension is sensible,” he said.
The Melbourne-based adviser and ifa Excellence Awards winner said it is important that the financial advice industry becomes a profession because the public has demanded it. Trust in the industry has been damaged and the royal commission has “tarnished” financial advice, Mr Hamilton said.
The recently released Momentum Intelligence Client Experience Survey found that 75 per cent of advice clients reported their perceptions of the financial planning industry have been impacted by the royal commission.
The majority of advice clients (60 per cent) expect their adviser to have a university qualification.
“The industry bodies haven’t cooperated with each other until recently. We have never been able to self-regulate and as a result someone else came in and has regulated for us. When that happens, there is overreach,” Mr Hamilton said.
“There was overreach with respect to the timelines with the education requirements. That’s why they need to be sensibly adjusted.”
Why aren’t we demanding of our politicians (especially given we pay their salaries and benefits, so essentially they’re our employees…which they seem to have completely forgotten over the years) that they have certain qualifications if they are to make decisions over certain portfolios. Eg, a Treasurer should have financial experience in Accounting, Economics & Finance; a Financial Services Minister should have experience in Financial Services (actual experience – not Kenneth Hayne type “experience”) and if they don’t have their relevant qualifications and degrees completed within a 2 year timeframe they lose their positions and incomes?
Labor = Union Funding = Union super industry fund fees and donations = Ca$hcow and future revenue for all in the equation.
Less competition quite simply means more revenue for all the above.
Any hurdle, difficulty, elimination device that Labor can implement against any competition to industry funds, benefits them to the tune of millions of dollars per year.
Why would they support it, the facts of whether it is reasonable or has anything to do with ‘consumer protection’ is a fairy tale.
Any holier than thou delusional wanna-be-erudite planner lambasting those currently less qualified are akin to the Roman senators still arguing the wine tax revenue split while the barbarians are at the gate.
[quote=Anon]All this arguing! To the Advisers standing up for this, I feel bad for you. Great you have all these quals but do you think it will stop you from getting complaints? No, no it won’t.
I know a couple Advisers currently going through an AFCA complaint both fully qualified. Guess what the clients just don’t want to pay for the advice but have the power to make a complaint at any time.
Cost to the client to do this. NOTHING. Cost to the advisers over $12,000.
You know why this is happening because of arrogant advisers who believe pushing other advisers under the bus is beneficial. We are not one voice, but a broken community. Continue acting this way guys and girls, you’re just putting the writing on the wall. [/quote][quote=Anon]
I don’t think anyone wants to push fellow advisers under the bus. We are just getting frustrated that political capital is being wasted at a crucial time. There are far more pressing issues, such as the 12 month opt-in legislation, ASIC pushing for a ban on life insurance commissions, the sole purpose test being used by ASIC & APRA to bully super funds out of allowing advisers to deduct fees from super, FASEA’s code of ethics – which is unworkable nonsense etc. etc. While these issues threaten our very existence, the little political capital we have is being wasted on pushing for an extension so the lowest common denominator can continue their recalcitrance and bring shame to our profession for an extra 2 years. Frankly, we have had a gut-full of your excuses.
The extensions provide a realistic time frame for the completion of the requirements.
I do not believe further extensions are required, nor do I believe what was originally proposed was realistic.
Jane has done a good job.
[/quote][quote=Anonymous][quote=Jimmy As for the exam, 98% of advisers didn’t even rock up to the first exam sitting in June. So I am sorry, my sympathy has run out. I will be speaking to my local Labor minister and asking them not to support the change. [/quote]
You sure you know anything about this industry…? my recollection is most good advisers who didn’t write in June was because the date of the exam clashed with making sure clients got their super fund contributions in on time…putting our clients interests ahead of our own.[/quote]
I know enough. I passed the exam and none of my clients missed their super contributions. It was disruptive and annoying, but I sucked it up and got it done. I also completed a masters while starting my own business, with young kids and a mortgage. I’m over all the lame excuses. If you can’t juggle work, family and study, maybe a professional vocation is not for you.
All this arguing! To the Advisers standing up for this, I feel bad for you. Great you have all these quals but do you think it will stop you from getting complaints? No, no it won’t.
I know a couple Advisers currently going through an AFCA complaint both fully qualified. Guess what the clients just don’t want to pay for the advice but have the power to make a complaint at any time.
Cost to the client to do this. NOTHING. Cost to the advisers over $12,000.
You know why this is happening because of arrogant advisers who believe pushing other advisers under the bus is beneficial. We are not one voice, but a broken community. Continue acting this way guys and girls, you’re just putting the writing on the wall.
To Ben
Can’t agree with you more. Apart from work and ongoing education, we all have our personal hurdles to jump through along the way as well. Not everyone is employed and has an easy-going life style and can afford to take time to study at their own pace. I object to those advisers who have completed the education standards and simply sit there and laugh at others who haven’t. That shows no empathy, and no support to peers. If one finishes their degree at the last minute. So what? They are still qualified. Just because an adviser has got all the required qualification doesn’t mean he/she is superior to those who haven’t. Again, I support Senator Jane Hume’s proposal. The frustration is the uncertainty as the politicians keep changing their mind.
[quote=Anonymous][quote=A frustrated adviser]
Sorry Frustrated, but I must agree with Anon here. I decided to complete a Bachelor Degree as far back as 2012 as I could clearly see that this would eventually be the requirement to be an adviser. The degree I chose to do hasn’t been recognised as an Approved Degree by FASEA, but it is a Related Degree and together with my Diploma and Advanced Diploma means that I will only have to complete the Ethics subject and exam. Even if the degree qualification had not been mandated, I still think it is the hallmark of a professional to continue formal education in addition to clocking the years of on the job experience which are also extremely valuable. If you’re passionate about advice, it isn’t a hardship to do the study in a field which you’re already knowledgeable in. [/quote]
You must have crystal balls !!!
To Anonymous
I already had a Master degree before I joined the industry in 2008. Unfortunately, that degree is classified as unrelated degree and I have to do 5 subjects. But the issue is not what degree and how many subjects an existing adviser has to complete. It’s about time management. Also to ensure that the course we do is actually going to be recongised by the government. The main argument here is about the “time frame”. I don’t see anything wrong with extending 2 years so that existing advisers can take their time to complete the course while servicing their clients, running their business and managing their personal life. I think Senator Jane Hume’s proposal is reasonable and practical. Labor’s argument has no basis. By the way, it would be appreciated if the news reporter could verify which Labor member said “by extending the qualification completion by 2 years will erode the protection of the consumers”. I’d like to see the evidence that supports this argument, and that’s the whole point.
[quote=Anonymous]I have met many people in my time who have a string of letters after their name but are all incompetent at providing personal advice, incapable of empathy or building trust and client relationships. The only winners here are the conflicted education providers, industry funds and big businesses.. none of the educated fat cats have realised that AUSTRALIAN CONSUMERS will be NO BETTER OFF.[/quote]
maybe you just did not understand what they were talking about because you only have a diploma
[quote=A frustrated adviser]To Anon–Did you know that the approved qualification have just recently been released by FASEA? How could any existing advisers jump in to complete any qualifications if they didn’t know which course is going to be recognised? I am assuming you are NOT an adviser as your comment clearly shows you don’t know what’s going on with FASEA and the requirement. [/quote]
Nice try frustrated adviser, but unfortunately you are wide of the mark.
I realised back in 2012 when the first FOFA reforms were passed that higher education qualifications were going to be required at some stage. If you couldn’t see that, then you must have had your head in the sand. While working full time and raising a family (ie the reasons most people trot out as to why they can’t do it), I jumped in and did my Masters of Financial Planning with the hope that it would be enough. It took me a while, but I had the luxury of doing it at my own pace which means now I don’t have deadlines looming.
One of our biggest jobs as advisers is to help people plan for the future. If I had a client who worked in an industry that was going through as much change as ours is, I would have recommended they start getting ready for it as soon as possible, not leave it to the last minute.
[quote=Jimmy As for the exam, 98% of advisers didn’t even rock up to the first exam sitting in June. So I am sorry, my sympathy has run out. I will be speaking to my local Labor minister and asking them not to support the change. [/quote]
You sure you know anything about this industry…? my recollection is most good advisers who didn’t write in June was because the date of the exam clashed with making sure clients got their super fund contributions in on time…putting our clients interests ahead of our own.
[quote=A frustrated adviser]To Anon–Did you know that the approved qualification have just recently been released by FASEA? How could any existing advisers jump in to complete any qualifications if they didn’t know which course is going to be recognised? I am assuming you are NOT an adviser as your comment clearly shows you don’t know what’s going on with FASEA and the requirement. [/quote]
Sorry Frustrated, but I must agree with Anon here. I decided to complete a Bachelor Degree as far back as 2012 as I could clearly see that this would eventually be the requirement to be an adviser. The degree I chose to do hasn’t been recognised as an Approved Degree by FASEA, but it is a Related Degree and together with my Diploma and Advanced Diploma means that I will only have to complete the Ethics subject and exam. Even if the degree qualification had not been mandated, I still think it is the hallmark of a professional to continue formal education in addition to clocking the years of on the job experience which are also extremely valuable. If you’re passionate about advice, it isn’t a hardship to do the study in a field which you’re already knowledgeable in.
Alistair, everyone is entitled to their opinion and so support you you have your view and commentary.
BUT, I have to challenge one point – only one. The people that caused what the industry is going through is the industry not outsiders to it, not incomeptant (sic ) ministers. We just dodged the bullet for a few decades.
In the main we have some great advisers. And many more good advisers. All of whom know that the industry had to change and change for the better. Very industry has to if it is to remain relevant. Unfortunately we still have some advisers, many who are good to socialise with, that time has just passed. the warning signs have been around for too long and they just hoped change would go away.
It’s unfair and ignorant to blame others for what we caused.
Deakin is offering Ethics for Financial Services as a unique intensive learning experience, giving students an opportunity to complete the unit in just three days of class. [b]COST $3,700…..for a three day course…!!!!!!![/b][b][/b]
[quote=Anonymous]I have met many people in my time who have a string of letters after their name but are all incompetent at providing personal advice, incapable of empathy or building trust and client relationships. The only winners here are the conflicted education providers, industry funds and big businesses.. none of the educated fat cats have realised that AUSTRALIAN CONSUMERS will be NO BETTER OFF.[/quote]
I have met many advisers over my 20 years…exacactly like you who likely have no letters after their name at all, and this has lead to Financial Planners being compared to used car salesmans, 16 suicides, over regulation, red tape, drowning in red tape, an inability to service ordinary Australians, every man and his dog calling himself a financial planner, a professional association that prefers to put the needs of it’s wallet ahead of it’s members, FASEA, LIF, a Royal Commission, optin, FDS, annual opt in, an inability to find an employee to do para-planning so I outsource it, retirement dreams up in smoke because business valuations in the drain, Tax Practioner Boards, Advisers Levy, so I can keep going. So is the plan to just winge for another 2 years and hope you can sell your business is it?
The muppets in Canberra that masquerade as the protectors of society are a far greater risk to the public than an extension of the FASEA requirements. The reality is FASEA have stuffed up and been far too slow rolling out requirements. Yes, we have all seen the writing on the wall years ago for standards rising, but without guidance, many simply did not want to run the risk of wasting time and money on studying the wrong subjects, as has been the case with CFP, Bachelor of Fin Planning, Masters etc in the recent past, that not require additional units and $$$ outlay. To those that criticise those wanting the extension, you are clearly individuals that are employed FP’s, work for industry funds or having nothing on the line. Congratulations to you, but your inconsiderate, arrogant comments have no place in this forum.
Do the politicians really care about the consumers or are they merely playing their political game–to block the legislation for the sake of blocking because it’s not a Labor proposal.
This is silly. The PROTECTIONS for consumers are contained within the FASEA values and Standards. This goes MUCH further than the best interest duty and Corporations law. If Labor and the Crossbench does not understand this, they need to get out of the way and go back to school. This industry has experienced enough heartache beacuse of the incometance of ministers who are merely pandering to populist rhetoric than practical legilislation and enforcement.
If you have read the guidelines and analysis from a legal viewpoint about what we are to have after 1 january 202, yo will realise the game changing legilsation to protect all consumers. As I said…incomeptant ministers without a clue have given rise to the propblems we have. Funny then that the people who caused this problem for our industry are the ones saying they alone can fix it…..
To Anon–Did you know that the approved qualification have just recently been released by FASEA? How could any existing advisers jump in to complete any qualifications if they didn’t know which course is going to be recognised? I am assuming you are NOT an adviser as your comment clearly shows you don’t know what’s going on with FASEA and the requirement.
Let’s go back in time for a moment. If I told you that at some point over the next 10 years (most advisers have been around for 10 years) if you do a Basic Graduate Diploma which is 8 Units with the majority of advisers getting exemptions which means you have to do only 4 subjects..over a two year time frame…and in return we would not be spat upon a Barbecues when we announce we’re a financial planner, and you could have prevented devaluation of businesses, my retirement is still on track, red tape and Government intervention is reduced, negative perception in the industry is gone, increased trust in the advisers is lifted, ultimately more money in your pocket would you take up that offer? Honestly when you look at the positive outcomes for the sake of losing say 1-2 hours on a weekend to do some study for max 12 weeks a semester (times 4) it’s begs the question what type of Financial Advisers are against this? I tell you it’s the fat lazy I don’t give a rats… I’ll find any excuse, Kids, mortgage, can’t read.. prefer to wash & wax the BMW and count my commissions type. It’s these same Advisers that come in and tell me about the Novel they’ve read or they’ve learned a foreign language for an overseas trip that say “How unjust”.
Actually, a LOT of advisers our here are doing extensive training so as to be able to pass the exam at the moment. We are also encouraged to complete the Unit 2 on Ethics, as well, before sitting the FASEA exam. The whole point of this exercise is to get advisers up to speed, not to knock them out of the industry. It appears a few advisers here are revealing their selfish motives to reduce competition, & so as to increase their fees to the clients. Also, how does it serve the best interests of the annual servicing requirements of your existing client base, if you are pre-occupied with doing up to 8 university units, when in reality it should not be needed at all.
Correct – that is irrefutable!
[quote=Anon]Seriously, if advisers haven’t started to do their required study until now, then that is their fault. They have known for years they needed to have more than a diploma. [/quote]
I agree with all contributors who said that an extension is not needed – no need to repeat their very sensible comments. For everyone complaining, and the various bodies supporting them, the industry proved it couldn’t self regulate. It has had too many under qualified people calling themselves advisers because there was no universally accepted standard of qualification – sure it should have been the DFP but too many exceptions were given to allow grandfathers to put up a shingle. I’m embarrassed by the number of sub-par ( being polite ) advisers I’ve met who can use the DFP designation.
There has been more than enough notice and more than enough time left to get the required qualifications. What sort of incompetents would the industry look like lobbying to say that studying is too hard, give me a break please but trust me to do the right thing because I have “empathy”? Little wonder people look at the industry the way they do. and the poor advisers who are out there getting the right qualifications and proving their professionalism get tarred by the cavemen.
And the Royal Commission didn’t “impact perceptions of the industry” it exposed the faults and shortcomings in it.
No one from the Parliamentary ALP or any representative of the ALP is on the record saying this.
“Labor has said this isn’t right and they have tied it to the royal commission and they are talking along the lines of it eroding the protection of consumers for another two years,” he said. “One is presuming they will vote against these extensions.”
That is not the basis for any form of argument that the opposition will vote either for or against something…
The extension to qualifications is completely out of sync with university regulation. To complete a bachelor degree you have a maximum of 12 years part time, to complete a masters degree this time frame is 6 years p/t for 12 subjects. To complete a grad dip (8 subjects) this would be 4 years p/t and they want to push out event further. The majority of advisers complaining about the exam not being available wouldn’t have sat it in the first 6 months anyway so the argument is null and void. As for the qualifications if you want to raise the bar on the industry a degree or higher is a must. The study load for completion of the full grad dip is well and truly achievable in the original time frame.so i hope it does get blocked. Even doing 2 subjects per year sticking to the original time horizon would still mean you complete it by the original deadline (and hardly any adviser wont get some exemption)
I have met many people in my time who have a string of letters after their name but are all incompetent at providing personal advice, incapable of empathy or building trust and client relationships. The only winners here are the conflicted education providers, industry funds and big businesses.. none of the educated fat cats have realised that AUSTRALIAN CONSUMERS will be NO BETTER OFF.
the relief I felt for the FASEA exam being extended 12 months has just been slapped down.. the stress that is being caused to people in this industry is immeasurable
You have to be kidding me. Fair enough an extension on the exam, give the poor roll out. But an extension on the education requirements. Almost no one will have to do a full eight subjects given the extensive list of exemptions that have come about, and if they do it means their education level is woefully low. With more than 4 years still to go and an opportunity to have already started, even with a family and a business to run this is not arduous and is inline with CPD anyway. (I speak from experience having completed a 12 subject masters with a family of 4 young kids and full time work in 18 months).
Blind Freddy could see higher standards were coming for years, and if advisers weren’t starting to move towards higher education I have little sympathy for them.
We need to draw a line in the sand to call our selves professionals, pushing it out two more years just lets those who shouldn’t be in the industry hang around longer. Let Financial planning move forward and away from the past, don’t keep trying to hang on to it.
I never thought I would say this, but I am backing Labour on their position on this one.
Thank god!!
Good call, Labor.
Why would Labor support it?
They want advisers gone so Industry Super can give unconflicted superannuation advice.
Am i wasting my time doing this Ethics Course or is making me more angry at what’s happened and going on.
Kids, can you stop fighting in the Canberra sandpit, us adults are sick of it!
The next Labor Government will be just a disaster for this industry. They are utterly clueless. I spoke to one financial services lawyer who described the FOFA legislation as the sloppiest legislation he’d ever seen. Drafted by? Bill Shorten ALP.
Seriously, if advisers haven’t started to do their required study until now, then that is their fault. They have known for years they needed to have more than a diploma.
the majority of advice clients do not expect their adviser to have a Uni qualification I say . You say 40% , .I say that’s a croc . Clients want well educated experienced advisers that tell it like it is , not for instance , a call centre Jockey who says he is a ” qualified adviser ” but doesn’t tell the client he can only recommend his own super fund . Labour party donors ie Industry funds are trying to rule , beware .They will stop FASEA extensions .
What a waste of political capital. There are far more pressing issues. If the sole purpose test isn’t urgently amended to explicitly include financial advice, we could all be wiped out with the pressure ASIC and APRA are putting on super funds at the moment. The annual opt-in requirement could also be a disaster, if the legislation is not carefully designed. Yet Jane Hume is putting her reputation on the line fighting for leniency on the exam and degree timelines. How embarrassing. There is more than 4 years to go, with the worst case scenario, only requiring a grad dip. It’s a very soft outcome and those without a degree should be thanking their lucky stars. As for the exam, 98% of advisers didn’t even rock up to the first exam sitting in June. So I am sorry, my sympathy has run out. I will be speaking to my local Labor minister and asking them not to support the change. By the way, before you come at me, did you put forward a submission to FASEA? Very few of you bothered. I put several submissions forward. I did my bit to try and argue to more leniency for experienced advisers. I was shocked to see that hardly any advisers bothered. Best of luck to all.
Come on IFA-where are the facts. Who in Labor stated the extensions are not approved and when was it said. Those of us who have Labor members need FACTS to confront thier member. DO IT QUICKLY PLEASE. And BTW, do the extensions have to legislated?
the original timeline was 2 years, it is not our fault no one could deliver within the time frame and if labor want to apply the rules, they must also follow the 2 years period. bet they would winge like @#$$#@ if they had to live by shortened timeline. play fair you bas$#%@s.
The blind leading the blind. Can this get any more out of control? Please stop messing with peoples lives. Good people are suffering and eventually you can only kick the dog so many times, enough is enough! How about some clarity and leadership?
Trust in the industry may have been damaged, but latest evidence is that trust in individual advisers hasn’t been damaged
Labor are scumbags. I look forward to you being in opposition for many years to come…