Out of the 5,081 voters on the latest ifa straw poll, 86.6 per cent (4,398) said CPD points should count towards achieving ‘degree equivalent’ status in response to the new education requirements that existing advisers must fulfill come 2024.
Meanwhile, 13.4 per cent (683 votes) said CPD points should not count.
The idea of CPD points contributing to achieving ‘degree equivalent’ status was suggested by the FPA recently in its 100-point adviser education transition proposal. The FPA suggested that in order to achieve ‘degree equivalent’ status advisers should be required to earn 100 points (degree equivalency) through a combination of study and industry experience. CPD would be capped at 14 points, the FPA suggested.
Despite the clear results of the poll, the controversial topic has garnered different responses from industry commentators.
Speaking to ifa, Houghton Strategic Solutions director Melinda Houghton said, “Degree equivalent status must have some flexibility and include experience and knowledge. CPD is part of that and records are available. Experience counts for a lot of our value to clients. CPD shows we have maintained currency, so is a good tool.”
Ms Houghton added, “If the FASEA board doesn’t get the mix right, we will lose more advisers. The current shortage will be exacerbated and clients will not have viable advice options. Getting this right is vital!”
However, managing director of Hewison Private Wealth Andrew Hewison said there needs to be a hard line drawn – a line which most financial advisers shouldn’t make it over.
“I am sceptical on the notion of applying CPD points to account for industry experience. Sooner or later a hard line needs to be taken on the matter of raising professional standards,” Mr Hewison said.
“The final guidelines should create some controversy because if it doesn’t, it basically means that most current ‘financial advisers’ have made it over the line and they shouldn’t. The FPA’s proposal to cap CPD points at 14 out of 100 may be acceptable depending on exactly how they can be earned.”
Ha ha ha ha! All y’all fps fas are a joke. My amazingness shines through even more when I get to compare myself to you jokers……
All they’re saying is CPD should count towards a portion. Not the whole frigging thing. Take TPB requirements as an example. A Degree earned in 2017 in finance meets all the requirements to meet TPB requirements, whilst a degree earned pre 2009 is worth jack %$%$ and requires further course work to meet TPD requirements or membership of a relevant association as evidence of equivalent education. So come 2027 what’s your degree from 2004 going to be worth ???
I think Mr Hewison should be careful what he wishes for…the line may end up being even too high for him…How hard is it to complete a investor risk profile and then allocate the funds in line with the profile…EFT’s SMA’s, Direct Shares, Managed Funds, direct property (oh no wait a real estate agent can tell a prospective buyer anything in a bid to influence them to invest over $500,000 into a property which they say is guaranteed to grow in capital value yet they don’t have to do a thing)…Oh and of course there are some out there in adviser land that think they know better then the people paid to sit in front of Bloomberg screens 24/7 and analyse the amount of ships moving around the world in an effort to predict the future of market values…WOW people!!…I think what you need a degree to allow you to remain compliant within the regulators and FSC efforts to make advisers into dinosaurs. Degree’s are not the answer…if it was, then we wouldn’t see Dr’s and Lawyers and Accountants ever in trouble with the law themselves…so much self interest being peddled regarding this education standard.
You must be joking ! Go to lots of Lunches and Breakies and that’s supposed to the same as 4 years of full time study ? It just shows how out of touch some planners are with community expectations.
A portion of CPD counting, which includes highly technical and assessed content, is not saying it is the only requirement.
Hahaha nice try!!!
That’s bit like asking builders if they think for every house they build, you it count towards them being a degree qualified engineer… haha – perhaps ask an impartial group of people on it.
Surely there would be degree holders in that many surveyed. We’re making assumptions here.
There were – I have a degree and I completed the survey. I was in the minority though….
We say CPD should count because it’s just easier for us but we know it’s not worth a thing. Nobody learns anything from CPD, this can easily be done on kaplan ontrack multiple choice without even opening the articles. You can do your whole years (30-40 hours) worth in 1-2 hours. Let’s not act like we should consider that even partially ‘degree equivalent’.
Reality you are in LA LA Land
Mate if you cant do your CPD in a few hours you must be way out of your depth every day with clients then
CPD point are simply not degree equivalent this is absurd and simply a reflection of people not interested in increasing their education qualifications.
I have a degree from many years ago and let’s just say that when you receive your bit of paper your prospective employer never asks to see your grade point average…All they care about is that you have the piece of paper and then call referees to see whether or not you are going to suit the culture of the organisation. Also when I did a degree 50% was a pass…NOT the 75 to 80%…demanded from CPD points…those people who say they learn nothing from CPD should have a rethink or leave the industry.
Hahahhahaha CPD “demanding”…. you mean the 4 total question, open book multiple choice assessments?
You’ve brightened my Friday haha. No wonder outsiders look down on the financial planning industry.
How ridiculous to even consider CPD points towards a ‘degree equivalent’ status – you can sit through a lot of lunchtime presentations and still walk away none the wiser!
Yep 4,398 people who don’t have a degree and don’t want to get one
Roughly the same number of people with grandfathered CFPs. Coincidence?
The FPA needs to refocus its priorities from protecting grandfathered CFPs to ensuring a reasonable minimum of professional standards (including education). Grandfathered CFPs do not meet a reasonable minimum, and they are devaluing the CFP designation.
Serious question – what if a grandfathered CFP holder also has a relevant degree?
I have a colleague who has an MBA who was told he would receive no credit towards his CFP at all, which seems unfair.
Why would he? It’s irrelevant.
Study in business administration has nothing to do with financial planning… You think someone with an arts degree should get exemptions too?
If the grandfathered CFP holder has a relevant degree he would (probably) meet the new minimum education requirements to be a financial planner. But if he has not completed the 5 units of relevant postgraduate level study to get a real CFP, he shouldn’t be allowed to call himself a CFP. He should be an AFP until he completes those units.
If an MBA holder was told no credit towards CFP, they probably didn’t have financial planning specific subjects in their MBA. Masters degree holders with relevant financial planning content can generally get up to 3 exemptions from CFP. Virtually no-one gets exemptions for the CFP Ethics and Exam/Assignment modules.
Less than one quarter of all CFP are legacy (no degree) these days.
As long as there is one grandfathered CFP remaining it prevents the FPA from advertising “CFPs have a degree, and further postgraduate training in financial planning and ethics”. As long as one grandfathered CFP remains, CFPs can only be described using wishy washy “highest standard” terminology that means nothing to the general public and doesn’t clearly differentiate from any other qualification or designation.
Whether it’s 25%, 10%, 1% or .01% doesn’t matter. As long as there is one single grandfather, the CFP designation is devalued to the lowest common denominator for everyone else. And there are plenty of grandfathers still aged in their 40’s. This issue will not be resolved by natural attrition for at least another 20-30 years.
FPA have never advertised or said what you purported to quote them on in lines 2 and 3 of paragraph 1. Be careful if you can’t cite a source!.
Of course they have never advertised or said it because it will never be true until they downgrade the grandfathers. It is what they SHOULD be saying if they were serious about professionalism, but it’s what they never WILL say as long as their priority is to protect the grandfathers at the expense of other members. I think you may have missed the point.
I have a real CFP, a real DFP (not truncated ADFS), 15 years of experience and CPD and an Assoc Diploma of Business – but no degree.
Your right, I don’t want to now take time out of my business to complete a degree to that will teach me what I already know, but give me the right piece of paper.
Have a look at the detail, CPD will only get you across the line if you’ve already done a range of other studies plus CPD.
The FPA proposal is trying to find a solution for people like me – not the cornflake packet CFP types.
If you don’t have a degree you don’t have a real CFP. It’s a prerequisite.
Perhaps a degree will help with your grammar… And if the degree will only teach you things you already know, then it shouldn’t take you away from your business. I managed to fit my study in around work, family, social and sporting commitments. If you want it enough, there will always be a way.