Responding to questions from ifa, FPA chief executive Dante De Gori said government authorities will likely draw a distinction between a ‘designation’ and a ‘qualification’.
“A designation is something that you must maintain, whereas with a qualification, once you’ve obtained that knowledge they can’t take that away from you,” he explained.
“In itself, [the CFP certification] can’t be seen as a degree because it’s not – it’s a designation.”
Mr De Gori noted that the current guidance does not adequately outline how prior learning undertaken by advisers will be recognised, but hopes courses such as the CFP will be recognised, adding that recognition of prior learning will become a focus for the FPA moving forward.
“How do we appropriately recognise people’s existing qualifications and training and how will that be used to help them meet the new standard? That’s the part that I think needs further clarity, and the FPA will be working towards that,” he said.
“We want to ensure that those qualifications are recognised to the extent that they can be recognised.”
Mr De Gori said the FPA will lobby for the inclusion of a ‘100-point plan’, which will recognise such courses as well as prior study, and ideally replace a portion of the new study existing advisers will be required to undertake.
“We are trying to look for opportunities where the system will recognise people’s experience through CPD and any previous training they’ve done to the extent that it can help their transition, but it can never replace and be the transition,” he said.
“They definitely will need to complete further education, and in fact many of them may need to do the full eight units, but what we’re proposing for the industry through this process is identifying to what extent their prior learning and CPD should count towards their transition.
“That’s the part that we’ll be progressing through over this consultation.”
Mr De Gori also clarified that the guidance, released on Thursday, 14 December, clarifies that “there is no expectation” that existing advisers will have to get a bachelor’s degree before the education standards compliance date of 1 January 2024.
“Financial planners who have no tertiary qualifications at least now know they can go and do a graduate diploma and that will up-skill them, ready for the new framework, and they have until 2024 to do that,” he said.
My guess is certain institutions can use this to walk away from BOLR? Meanwhile the rest of us pay for the sins of others…
Try selling your business?
Oh my god, what a bunch of whinging babies. There are two simple choices – get going with the education or just get out. When has whinging ever produced any benefit. There will be no changes with the Senate in its current format and an RC in the wings and there will definitely be no changes if we get a Labor govt after the next election. Shorten is famous for having said “no politician has ever been reelected by going soft on financial planners”….
Jimmy you’re a goose
You’re correct. It’s an important life lesson really, in that you should not to be bothered with any education, forget about trying to lift professional standards and go out and do further study, just stick to the minimum as one day you’ll just need to do it again.
I agree with you Jimmy. When the going gets tough…most people nowadays post outlandish comments to a social media page.
Jimmy, you are right and that is why a lot of advisers will get out.
It’s time for the FASEA farce to be scrapped. Only implement a regime for new advisers entering the industry. It’s time for the proposed rules for existing advisers to be withdrawn in their entirety, including the proposed exam. The FPA and AFA should be lobbying for the removal of retrospective rules on behalf of their members. It’s time for political intervention to put an end to FASEA’s madness. Shame on you Deen Sanders, you had a chance to deliver a common sense approach for existing advisers but have failed dismally.
While FASEA is currently a mess, were not going to get anywhere by not raising the bar for existing advisers. Sounds like you’re worried about not passing a basic exam which explains quite clearly why the bar needs to be raised. You want a profession, prove your worth.
100% agree
Why should existing advisers be exempt from the new education standards? Because of their ‘experience’? It’s all very well to take that view if the entire adviser workforce is on the cusp of retirement, but what of relatively new advisers who are ‘existing’ but have neither education nor experience? It simply isn’t possible to be that granular in the application of rules – it’s either all in or none in.
We are told there is certainty now. Bulldust. In practice, it bears little resemblance to what was flagged 12-24 mths ago. Can’t believe a word coming out.
What’s the bet, rules change again in the next 3 years. Especially if Labour wins government.
Are the industry bodies listening? This won’t do. Time for AFA and FPA to get together and grow a spine.
Looking to universities as paragons of virtue is a false proposition. This is simply a convenient crutch for our politicians, but the cost are significant, and outcome definitely questionable on the current terms.
I know of at least 2 people completing Masters degrees at highly reputable universities in different non-finance fields. The promised careers did not eventuate, the best available was unstable casual work in both cases. The student debts and lost years remain though. They have both sought to build their income through new areas and on the job training. The results income wise are average but better than the tertiary fields they trained in.
For the record, I’m a CFP myself, and Masters qualified in a non-finance field.
[b]Trust our universities? Caveat emptor[/b].
As an adviser writing and teaching financial planning at University level this is a mess, we’ve/you’ve been well and truly ripped off by broke, poorly run and heavily subsidised Australian Universities struggling to compete with privately run organisations and mining booms and let down by your industry associations. In short you’ve been shafted.
[quote=Ex CFP & FPA member]This is a disgrace. What happened to the 100 point plan FPA? We have been sold a bucket of crap by the FPA for years now. 28 years experience Dip FP, CFP and numerous other courses completed but no recognition and back to school we go to do a full degree. No more fees to the FPA!!
Time to retire early as this industry is stuffed. 50% or more of the current financial planners will not survive past 2024 (either due to leaving early or not capable of doing a full degree and passing) and I pity the ones who choose to stay and continue to get kicked from pillar to post as we have for the last 10 plus years. Enough is enough![/quote]
The only reason I am a member of the FPA is be recognised as CFP. IF that’s not worth the paper it written on then why waste $1,000 per year? I will put that towards my new uni course I have to do after 18 years of advising clients with no complaints or audit issues and all those hours of CPD completed. I predict the FPA will be out of business in 2 years or amalgamated with another association as they are irrelevant and no one listens to them. They have no power in politics.
Couldn’t agree more. And do you know how many clients I’ve won in the last 13 years because of my CFP designation? You guessed it, none. It’s a joke.
As a very simple question, how many of the thousands of advisers currently in practice actually meet the education requirements today as proposed? And given this would only be a handful, who is able to practice and be able to buy the many businesses soon to be on the market? The ramifications for ongoing advice, work loads and fees simply begs comment. What logic is there for such a massive desecration of an industry. I am Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Economics degree from Adelaide University, SMSF and Aged Care specialist accredited and 32 years in financial planning and I do not have enough education – apparently! If I don’t I simply ask who does?
i think under 10%. Again, I am not opposed to a tighter industry with better qualified people. I’m not as qualified as you, 17 years, Economics Degree and ADFP. I held off doing CFP or the AFA equivalent just in case. I might do the Deakin MPP (FP). The only issue I have is that Rafferty bloke is an FP hating antagonist.
Of that 10%, I suspect most would be aged under 30 and not have the capital or borrowing capacity to purchase a practice. I think the financial planning model of the future will be dominated by private equity investors consolidating lots of fire sale practices and then running them as boiler room operations staffed with young recent graduates.
I don’t think you’re alone. The way this is designed implies that the majority of financial planners have DFP 1-4 and that’s it.
AMP will probably have to buy a lot of the AMPFP practices via their very generous, contractually obligated, BOLR program. Hate to think what damage it will do to AMP’s financial performance though if they are suddenly handing over mountains of cash to acquire lots practices well above their market value, with no-one to service the clients moving forward.
I have a Masters Degree in Financial Planning and like you, I don’t qualify either. What a disgrace. I will now be forced to beg for RPL and spend several thousands of dollars on courses I don’t need, with no benefit for my clients. It will also take me away from my family and my business. I have already put in the hard yards and made the social and financial sacrifice. Now I have to go back and repeat? How dare FASEA treat us like this.
Because the board is mainly made up of academics who’s sole purpose in life is to research and study. They don’t do anything else so they expect us all to follow their logic. The other members are just gutless tokens put on the board to illustrate diversity. I can’t believe Deborah Kent would have agreed to this? As she is the only (or one of the only) practicing FP on the board I would have expected more from her. Hang your head in shame FASEA.
According to the 16/17 FPA annual report the FPA made $2,046,702 in revenue from the CFP course alone, being some 15% of total revenue. Remove this income and they’d make a loss of $1.3 million. Using 2016 figures it’s even higher. How likely would any planner enrol in the CFP course in 2018 in the current environment with this much uncertainty?
I will make a prediction now and I could probably argue already, that the FPA will be focused on that bottom line figure and will take their eyes off the ball in acting in the best interest of consumers and advisers. I feel they will and have stuffed this entirely up for all planners and all Australians. My friend with the practically worthless 2004 Masters of Financial Planning degree will appreciate these comments. Planners need to communicate and voice frustrations with FAESA directly. We cannot have some crappy money making CFP course made as the focus of the FPA’s attention at the expense of those many planners who have finance degrees and higher education courses already.
This is a disgrace. What happened to the 100 point plan FPA? We have been sold a bucket of crap by the FPA for years now. 28 years experience Dip FP, CFP and numerous other courses completed but no recognition and back to school we go to do a full degree. No more fees to the FPA!!
Time to retire early as this industry is stuffed. 50% or more of the current financial planners will not survive past 2024 (either due to leaving early or not capable of doing a full degree and passing) and I pity the ones who choose to stay and continue to get kicked from pillar to post as we have for the last 10 plus years. Enough is enough!
I’m an adviser, who will need to study as a result of these reforms. However, in principle, I agree with the requirement for a Graduate Diploma of FP. Makes absolute sense to me. Why should a Bachelor of Arts count towards FP quals? There does need to be some sort of recognition of experience though. But while we have advisers sitting on a diploma of FP, and recommending complex advice, this has to be rectified if we are to be considered a profession.
They lobbied for higher education standards, to sell more CFP designations, to pay their own high salaries. Went around telling everyone to get CFP to be education compliant.
Colossal backfire. Well done. Except we pay the price.
I’M OUTRAGED. WHO DO THESE FLACCID FASEA PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE? They, the companies and FPA type of creatures are absolutely STUFFING our industry and US as advisers with this menagerie. Don’t they have anything better to do than install themselves as some sort of divine power that makes all the wrong decisions and distracts everyone else from their jobs. Flush the lot of them down the loo, get a pure and proper representation of experienced knowledgeable senior advisers that spend their day AT THE COALFACE WITH CLIENTS and fix this mess in a week or two PROPERLY and FOR GOOD! It isn’t rocket science and only dummies like FASEA and FPA can make it look like it.
I saw this mess coming when FAESA announced the extremely tight and restrictive definition of degree for new entrants, that definition being limited to only Financial Planning degrees at approved Universities. They should of acted to ensure the definition of degree was broad enough to cater for existing advisers. Why didn’t they ? No doubt FAESA ignored them due to their relationship with product manufacturers. I stupidly wasted time writing an email to the FPA asking the definition of a degree to be inclusive of a wide rage of Finance degrees for existing advisers. Should of wrote to FAESA direct.
First hand out the RG 146 like lollies, then come down with a hammer for any degree qualifed person with a CFP, should have made it… shame on you FPA, and the other fat cats destroying this industry.
[b]So FPA, where are you with the 100-point plan? Enough talking, enough waiting. [size=20px]Time to deliver[/size]. [/b]
rejected outright. time to move on.
The FPA is running a racket by advertising the CFP as being higher than a Masters. I’m surprised that they have been able to get away with it all this time !
A racket in which Deakin appears to have been complicit.
We continue to “major” in minor issues. 85 % of the business is knocking on doors. The only practical education requirement by 2024 will be data entry. The robot will prepare the advice and the adviser will manage the relationship in exchange for a fee. The princesses making up these rules need to go and do a proper days work.
Maybe FPA is happy with this outcome because now they can gauge a heap more fees from us all via offering some form of bridging course…?
God knows they won’t be retaining many CFP level memberships once everyone has superior qualifications.
I guess FPA membership will plummet once many no longer need to keep it purely to retain what will be an obsolete and irrelevant onoce we all have higher required education than CFP.
$1,000pa for nearly 20 years now and all I have to show from the FPA is the need to study more…?
I am like so many others who have commented. A full eight subjects, plus exams, and additional subjects plus exams to become a CFP in year 2000 . . . and suddenly I am no longer “qualified” to give advice. If this announcement is the level of support for qualified and educated members of the FPA, why the hell are we paying membership fees ?
$500 to be an associate or ordinary voting member of the FPA and $1,000 to be a CFP. I’m a CFP but my degree is too old and so I’ll need to enroll in more courses. I can’t really see the value in paying for these extra dollars just to have a CFP logo so will likely just be an Associate member. It’s quickly becoming spot the adviser that dosen’t have a degree. They have CFP at the start of their name.
Firstly, Advisers need to realize 5 units done in 2013 are worthless in 2023 due to time constraints when recognizing prior learning. Secondly, What makes anyone think the privately run CFP program is going to be an automatic exemption equivalent to 5 of the 8 units required? It is not listed with FASEA now and is not listed on the relevant AQF organizations. You’re putting your faith in the FPA hoping they can come to the rescue for you. How did that work out with FoFA or LIF or FASEA? A quick search with a major University (Deakin) shows that the 5 Units of the CFP program gives you just 1, exemption from the 8 units required to meet FASEA requirements. Deakin Uni reckon 5 CFP units are equivalent to 1 of their AQF level 8 subjects. A lot of work to be done in this space and it’s early days…meanwhile time ticks away.
Are you sure about this? Deakin is the underlying provider of the CFP program, which has always been advertised as postgraduate university level.
According to Deakin University website under the prior year learning tab the following result happens when you indicate you’ve done the CFP course via the privately run FPA:
Total credit points needed to complete course 12 (i.e 12 subjects), credits awarded 1, credits needed 11.
1. Completion of Certified Financial Planner (CFP) Certification Program which includes + CFP1 FPA Professionalism + CFP2 Applied Strategies 1 + CFP3 Applied Strategies 2 + CFP4 Investment Strategies equals an exemption from MAF707 Investments and Portfolio Management
Quite incredible that Deakin would take money to deliver the FPA branded CFP course advertised as being postgraduate level, then only allow 20% of it as credit for their own Deakin branded postgraduate course. This warrants further investigation on so many levels.
Adrian Raftery from Deakin is never short of a public comment. Be interested to hear what he says about this. On the surface it reflects very badly on the integrity and credibility of Deakin.
Weak as water by the FPA… I thought they existed to support their members. How can someone straight out of Uni get more professional respect than a 20+ year adviser with a Business degree, ADFP and study gained CFP? Doesn’t make sense.
So i did 24 Subjects at uni to get a degree in management and finance, 8 subjects to get my DFP plus 5 Subjects for CFP including two 3 hour exams on one day so a total of 37 subjects plus have run my own licence for 10 years and practising for 20 years and now they say thats not good enough. Its a joke.Maybe the politicians should go back to uni and do a bridging course.
Yes i’m just you like you. Apparently they think we’re all less qualified than hairdressers. Who is going to replace us given all new advisers need specialist Degrees in Financial planning and not just finance. It’s a real mess. 100% we need to lift standards but not make things unobtainable.
Yep O’Dwyer and All Pollie mates should have to go and do a degree in Common Sense and those pollies that have done prior legal degrees, etc don’t count.
FASEA What a bunch of absolute morons.
FPA Shame on you, hang your heads in shame, the premier designation my foot!!
Will not renew if I have to study further with CFP, simples!!
Yep I’m with you – I’m happy to be OUT and away from the morons running this shell game , OUT by 2023 methinks. Early retirement – miss my clients dearly but not the self-interested life companies, politicians or FPA gooses. Starting to actually look forward to retirement and no more STRESS created by the self-interested industry types.
I agree with the cornflakes crew being put back in their box and made to do the 8 units for the post grad dip… you have till 2024 to do it!! If they are all knowing the it will be walk in the park and there are opportunities for recognition of prior learning e.g.. experience, if that’s all you have… the consumer no longer wants just experience… would you use a builder without a licence but has been doing it for 30years??
20 years of advising and I can recall being asked about my qualifications literally twice! It is a NON-ISSUE for consumers, they size us up in a few minutes and if we build rapport and trust they give us a go. Very very few consumers choose an adviser based on qualifications! And yes, I’d choose a 30 year experienced builder with a great reputation over a unknown with a ticket any day of the week. As would most (so long as they had insurance, which is all people want a registered builder for, so t hey access the insurance).
Yes if I could inspect his previous work and check references. Licence to build is no guarantee of anything !!
Um, without a license your Builder is uninsured Boof (just to complete this dumb analogy)
I have the qualifications, a Bachelor of Business, Grad Dip of Finance, Dip of Financial planning…but still have to go back to school. I’ll get some exemptions but maybe only 4 out of 8 and at $2,700 a subject it’s about $10K and frankly I’d rather study something else. No recognition of the thousands I’ve wasted on short courses such as aged care, SMSF etc.
While I appreciate the importance of the education standards and it’s interaction in weeding out the bad crop of advisers, there are many like me with over 30 years experience within the industry who have always done the right thing by clients. Having said this, I have also completed 2 Diplomas during this time (12 units in Insurance Diploma-Life with University of Technology Sydney as they are now known and 8 units the Deakin Uni (FPA course). This does not factor in the countless other advanced courses undertaken in Aged Care, SMSF, Business Insurance, Corporate Superannuation, Advanced Underwriting etc etc.
AND …. I’m now being told that all this is not enough to satisfy meeting 8 units of study!!!
Come on people! I’m not looking for any handouts but there’s got to be something dreadfully wrong here.
Forced retirement at the end of 2023 is definitely looking GOOD !
Hahahaha! Welcome to my world – I pretty much mirror your situation and will be retiring 2021-23 depending on the clueless ‘Dad’s Army’ FPA and FASEA, Life Groups and Politicians and if they sort their mess (unlikely even by 2024!). Jeez they’re a pack of clowns, really, aren’t they?! Yep, come 2025, the industry will be full of uni grads who will be fully engaged behind a desk maintaining the robots for the life and investment companies. Very few will be effective by sitting in front of a real person. God help the clients as their ‘best interest’ is being trashed right before our eyes, right her, right now. Way to go FASEA, you absolutely clueless academic morons.
CFP + B.Sc in math, physics and psychology, 27 years in the industry isn’t good enough! Why does the degree need to be a”finance” degree given that we have to have continuing education and we are dealing with people’s goals and objectives as much as we are dealing with the numbers an dinvestments
Andrew, a Finance Degree is not sufficient. For new entrants it has to be a specific financial planning degree, the ability to read a balance sheet is second to the ability to know when to hand out a FSG. For existing advisers like you and me we’ll need the equivalent of 8 x “financial planning” units at AQF level standard. I reckon every adviser is affected by this measure and it highlights just how wrong they got it. See you class to learn about co-contributions.
The FPA’s own handbook refers to the CFP certification program as being at a Post Graduate (Master’s degree) level…. they need to back this up by ensuring that the 5 CFP units count towards the 8 and provide a bridging course option
A Masters Degree In Financial Planning will elevate you to an AQ9 education standard which will be accepted by FASEA and for some it will be an entre to complete further units to achieve CFP status. I have been a financial planner for over 37 years and completed DFP and qualified for CFP 17 years ago. I completed Master of Financial Planning and graduated last year as I could see the writing on the wall. A lot of it is revision of what you may have already learned but I found that with the revision and additional learning was very beneficial to my business and have not looked back. The research paper is challenging.
I can see a class action on the horizon against the FPA for its constant promotion and grandstanding over the importance and almost necessity of holding a CFP designation. The FPA should do the honorable thing and just close its doors after refunding all member’s annual fees obviously.
FPA do the honourable thing. Pigs will fly before that happens.
Roboadvice here we come. There will be little need for the FPA. The institutions will be happy.
I don’t mind studying (as I have done before), but I refuse to study things I already know.
If you’re asking me to do anything substantial, I’d consider something new altogether.
I am gobsmacked at the weak response. FASEA has massively exceeded their mandate and they must be called to account. Remember, their next task will be the creation of an enforceable, mandatory code of conduct. If they exceed that mandate, in the same way they have with the degree standard, they could totally destroy our profession. This is not the time for a passive, limp wristed response from the FPA
Makes you wonder why FASEA has so drastically exceeded their mandate. Is this Deen Sanders revenge on the FPA for having to be an apologist for rampant hypocrisy and conflicts while he was their employee?
There must be a line drawn in the sand for those who studied the 5 units for the CFP and those who where handed it by default!!! common sense should prevail. The CFP units were at a similar level to a degree subject/unit.
I agree. I did not get handed mine but rather did the required units. Should count for something.
There has been a line drawn, neither CFP designations are of any standing from a FASEA point of view.
Why would you study a course from a private institution and expect it to have a University degree standing and expect it to receive like for like exemption. You’ve been fooled my friend. Deakin University (creators) gives the five courses of the CFP program just one exemption from their Graduate Diploma program. On that same note why would you expect an adviser like myself with close to two decades of experience, a Bachelor of Business, post graduate studies in finance, a diploma in financial planning to enroll in some rebadge Deakin University course that they’ve already studied. The CFP program is just a money machine for the FPA and you’ve been duped.
And if Deakin was an active participant in that process of CFP deception they should be held accountable for their role.
The FPA will likely cease to exist within 2-3 years. It now has absolutely no relevance in policy making or educational requirements. The CFP designation is not worth the paper it is written on. The FPA needs a growing member base to survive and recent decisions will see members leave in droves. The FPA staved off extinction over a decade ago but it won’t be so fortunate this time. Nothing would make me happier.
I will leave for sure. I was only staying because I did 5 units of extra study to get my CFP so I didn’t want to let it go. If it is worthless the FPA are dead to me.
You won’t be the only one. If I am forced to study more units, the first and second subjects will be law and tax. That way I won’t need FPA membership for TPB purposes.
I think this will shock alot of the cornflake CFP’ers who thought that their DFP and a handed out CFP would get them anywhere?
It turns out they were the smart ones Troy, for not wasting time and money on doing a degree and a Real CFP. The people who are far more shocked and outraged are those who did invest heavily in their own education only to have it deemed worthless by FASEA.
So, where do we join the class action against the FPA for promoting the CFP designation, only obtainable to members of the FPA, which is now proven worthless as a qualification?
Yep, I look forward to a full refund for the cost of 5 worthless CFP units.
Anyone achieving CFP designation this last few years would meet the FASEA requirements, since a degree is required to obtain the designation. These comments re aimed at those practitioners from 20 years ago who got given their CFP designation for nothing; straight out of the cornflakes box.
Not necessarily – it will depend on ‘what’ degree is held and ‘when’ it was completed.
Unfortunately incorrect John. Although a degree is required to be a Real CFP, it doesn’t have to be a recently acquired financial planning degree – which is the ridiculous FASEA reinterpretation of “degree requirement”.
Most Real CFPs will need to do at least 3 units, if not the full 8 units, of a Grad Dip to be allowed to continue practicing as financial planners. This is in spite have them having multiple academic qualifications already, and meeting the so called “gold standard”. It is why the whole situation is utterly farcical.
Hang on there . . . .eight full units of study over three years, plus another five fro a CFP and you say I got my CFP designation in 2000 “for nothing” ? Pull your bloody head in.
In short I believe he just said the CFP “designation” is not worth jack $@%. Seems like he’ll be going back to the CBA cap in hand asking for money. Like the AFA this year, I predict a net loss for the FPA next year due to enrollment numbers in the CFP program dropping and lower numbers of CBA advisers being forced to join the FPA. Also members leaving due to more TPB organizations being recognized.
Maybe they need to edit their website :”Through the FPA, you gain access to the CFP® designation, the highest financial planning qualification worldwide”
But wait, if we can flog another course let’s disregard the old one. What a joke FPA
A very poor response from the FPA. Put in legislation is the requirement to have a degree. The process of defining a degree has been hijacked. It totally ignores and makes no mention of those Financial Planners with existing finance related degrees, diplomas and post graduate qualifications already. FAESA announced all existing advisers will need 8 units at AQF level 8. Therefore a significant number of advisers will need to go out and enrol in a “University” subject / Graduate Diploma and obtain a degree equivalent unit costing between $2,400 to $3,700 each. I have a degree in Commerce and post graduate studies in applied finance and whilst i might get a couple of exemptions and despite my 20 plus years I’ll need to enrol in Super 101 and learn about concessional contributions.
I agree with you. I have a Masters in Financial Planning that isn’t recognised as I finished it in 2004 – doesn’t make their stupid list.
If the FPA is unable to ensure that real CFPs get RPL for 5 units when enrolling in a Grad Dip, then it will expose the whole CFP scheme as a complete and utter fraud.
Gee…I thought if you have the CFP after your name you’re like a god of financial planning. Well, that’s how it was marketed anyway.