Speaking to ifa on condition of anonymity, a longstanding FPA member – claiming to be speaking on behalf of numerous concerned members – has voiced concerns about the association’s role in assisting the government to set professional standards and approve educational courses under the new regime.
The concerns surround the role played by the Financial Planning Education Council, a body that has designed a financial advice curriculum and list of approved degrees which Minister for Revenue and Financial Services Kelly O’Dwyer has indicated will be accepted as an appropriate standard by the government.
A statement on the FPA website says the association established FPEC as an “independent body” in 2011, but records held by government body IP Australia reveal that the FPA is listed as the “owner” of the FPEC trademark.
In addition, a public statement made by the FPA on 30 October 2017 said that “FASEA will accept the FPA’s gift of the FPEC curriculum and approved degrees list”, indicating control over the so-called independent body.
ifa understands that FPA chief executive Dante De Gori and head of academic relations Howard Cook both sit on the FPEC board and attend its meetings.
The FPA member questioned whether the association’s “gifting” of the FPEC curriculum is in the best interests of the broader membership.
“Why did the FPA recommend that FASEA adopt the FPEC approved degrees list when 99 per cent of its members don’t satisfy this narrow list?,” the member asked.
“[Doesn’t the] FPA have a duty of care to its members when they proposed that FASEA use the approved degree list that they control/own? FPA have caused 99 per cent of its members to not qualify with FASEA proposed requirements. Why would a professional body do that to its members?”
A separate FPA member, speaking to ifa on the same condition, asked whether Griffith University professor Mark Brimble may face a conflict of interest in his dual role as a FASEA board member and FPEC chair.
Former FPA chair Matthew Rowe also sits on the FASEA board and the standards authority’s CEO Deen Sanders is a former FPA employee.
The comments follow those of fellow FPA member and Certified Financial Planner William Johns, who has publicly asked whether a number of FASEA board members, including Dr Brimble, face serious conflicts of interest.
Reason enough for never joining the FPA, always seemed like they were working against us and continue to look that way……. Shame our industry has all these so called industry experts, that dont have the slightest clue what we do or how we do it….
No the FPA won’t lose all its members because they will offer a bridging course/Grad Dip/CFP+ to rake in more $$$ from not just new advisors but almost all exisitng advisors!
This FASEA/FPA/University/O’Dwyer link needs to be brought into the spotlight when the Royal Commission starts up.
Everybody seems to be missing the point.
Few, if any, of the decisions being brought in by the government, affecting Financial Advisers, have any to do with logic.
Formal education can impart knowledge but not wisdom.
Their is an agenda hidden behind all this and we will all suffer its imposition irrespective of common sense ……as the juggernaut rumbles on.
AND we will continue to be appallingly represented by our associations
Simple question. On what basis is a finance degree at UTS that was completed 20 years ago no longer relevant ? Have the principals of investment and risk management changed ? Please explain which subjects need to be updated and on what basis.
Apparently all knowledge of value came into being within the past five years (I’m in a similar situation to you so please accept the sarcasm).
Simple answer John. Your finance degree is very relevant and adequate. But its not going to make the Uni’s of the members of FASEA or the FPA $20,000 is it.
Exactly and my position too. So how do well qualified advisers with long standing work experience too get together properly to put a united adviser front against this FASEA rubbish.
It’s clear the FPA etc are completely conflicted and working against advisers.
A united adviser direct approach seems our only viable solution.
Mr Brimble, please save your excellent reputation and quality work to date by quietly stepping down. If not, you will create a scandal at an ethics organisation. Not a good legacy to be forever associated with. Do the right thing, the ethical thing, and step down. You can still make a contribution to FASEA by making a submission (the same avenue that we only have). You know the Federal Opposition will use you and this scandal to get at Kelly O’Dwyer. Hand in your notice today, this isn’t going away.
Because the FPA and their FASEA mates think they stand to make a killing on new education requirement fees. Don’t worry about the 75% of advisers who are adequately qualified already but will now lose their businesses and be forced to retire early because their current degrees and experience suddenly count for nothing. Don’t worry about the hundreds of thousands of customers who will be left defenseless when 75% of advisers leave the industry in 5 years time. There is money to be made by the FPA and FASEA and that’s all that matters.
I hope planners realize that if you have more students in your course you get more money and paid more. Even University funding is based on student enrollments. In financial planning terms we call that Volume based payments which were banned by the Government. Yet here we have academics directly deciding what courses are appropriate and getting remunerated based on the number of student enrollments.
I could give about 10,000 names of representatives within the University sector that would be happy to represent academia and have no conflict of interests and work with FOS and advisers to come to a workable solution.
The question is that these guys face is….Should I make planners with existing degrees and let’s say a Master in FP from 2006 as meeting the definition of a “degree”. Or should I put my course on the FPEC list and make them study a Graduate Diploma again….mmmm very tough decision here. Yet here we have planners argue and get so upset that asset based fees could make some planners invest funds as opposed to paying off a home mortgage. He we get so passionate that an insurance commission could influence our advice. Could not getting paid based on students numbers and the very matter of whether you have a job when your University posted a net loss last year also influence these people decisions.
Surely the appointment of these people should be beyond doubt. Wake up we are being screwed.
I look forward to buying Mark Brimbles book co-authored by his other FASEA mates at $170 a pop when I enrol in his compulsory Grad Dip course.No doubt as his enrollment numbers are up his contract has been renewed for another year and his remuneration is directly linked to the number of students enrolled in his course. The more students you’ve got the higher you are paid. I stated before it’s a conflict whether actual or perceived and FASEA was too important to have any conflicts whatsoever. There are a thousands of academics out there that could of represented Universities, we did not need his appointment and he should immediately step down. Regardless of how nice a guy he is it’s a conflict. How can planners support the decision in this environment. Here we are now moaning about conflicts etc etc.
Surely when FPA “gifted” FPEC they assumed it would only be used in relation to new entrants to the profession. That is just common sense, and it reflects the spirit of the legislation. No-one expected FASEA to exceed their mandate by requiring planners who already have a degree to go back and get another one. That was never in the legislation.
The relevant conflicts here are not with FPA’s links to FPEC. It is with university employees on the FASEA board who benefit from FASEA exceeding their mandate to force uni qualified planners back to uni again. (And again and again and again every 5 years or so?).
Probably this explains why I wrote to the FPA on two occasions via email and one verbal phone call stating I had many students wanting to change from their accountancy major to become Financial Planners and seeking assistance to help me provide information and they never responded. Obviously I was not from the right University.
I seriously doubt the FPA (or anyone for that matter) expected the outrageous draft proposal put forward by FASEA. The FPEC guidelines make perfect sense for new courses and new entrants. But to retrospectively apply these guidelines to every single financial planner with an existing degree? Who could have predicted that? It is too bizarre. No doubt this is why the FPA are so silent. Like the rest of us, they were caught completely off guard. I just hope FASEA realise their mistake and quickly fix this, or else it will become very embarrassing for the government and undermine the good intention behind these reforms. Some of the examples put forward by advisers in this forum are insane. The mainstream media and Federal opposition will delight in embarrassing Kelly O’Dwyer when they realise what a farce FASEA has become.
This reminds me of when good ol Eddie mcGuire was calling Friday night footy when Collingwood played and claimed he was not conflicted….yeah and Elvis just sold me an icy pole at my local on the run!
What needs to change in the industry? Attitudes of people who think that FP is all about Investments and Asset Allocation. The sooner this happens, the sooner we weed out the people we DO NOT want giving advice. Financial Planning is turning into a profession, that requires constant learning….think about it, accountants, lawyers, doctors – all constantly learn…would you want a doctor not up to date on the latest developments treating you??? I certainly would not.
If the FPA/FPEC were in conflict with FASEA standards, then don’t you think that they might have changed the educational standards FASEA has decided to adopt to try and retain MORE members? Think about it – apparently the majority of FPA members won’t pass the new FASEA education requirements, that would potentially mean that its members would then all leave, and that the FPA would then lose all that membership money.
Think about all the people selected to be on these boards, they are all people who are specialists in their fields and know what the industry is about. We all have our chance to comment about what we think should be done – they have asked for submissions, so rather than be keyboard warriors, how about, if we are concerned, we all go to people we know, both in the organisation and outside of it, and write submissions to these bodies and tell them what we want to see. If we all cannot agree and unite to help fix our industry, then how can we hope to achieve the best for ourselves and future advisers…and most importantly, which everyone forgets, our clients??
What rubbish ! It always was a profession. the majority of planners were professional. the Academics of the world decided to bring in private useless courses that gave basic qualifications ? in just 4 weeks that gave everyone a kick up the backside . remember that ? We had a few bad apples like any other that industry .ASIC was asleep at the wheel and too slow to remove or even monitor bad planners or any complaints … remember Storm financial. The comparison you give about doctors being professional is Crap . Show me when they changed the rules that put 98% of practitioners not up too scratch and not highly trained and then made all members do another 4 years study that improved what ? No HECS then … … maybe that is why they want to bring in more study and more $$$$$
But we already have relevant (FP) degrees and keep up to date with CPD each year to ensure continuous learning, no different to your references to other professions. What you are missing is that other professions aren’t suddenly told their relevant degrees no longer count. Why should my FP degree suddenly not count??
Disgusting behaviour by the FPA. It sounds like they have stitched up all the members and are getting ready to offer a bridging course/certificate. ‘Oh we tried our best but the nasty government won’t accept CFP alone and want you to do a degree. But don’t worry, we’ve got a CFP+degree equivalent bridging course, just give us more money’.
Makes sense. Especially if you make a third of your revenue from enrollments in a CFP program that meets no AQF levels and dosen’t even give you credit for a Certificate in Advice 101.
Given the FPA’s capacity to make donations, i presume all members should we be expecting a reduction in FPA fees at the next renewal. How many other donations and what value have the FPA felt compelled to make?
Renewal? Why? No point in renewing as the FPA will probably be extinct.
FPEC has done two things since it was created in 2011. First, it established a national financial planning curriculum across a number of universities. Second, it created an approved degree list for the purposes of entry into the CFP program ONLY.
FASEA should have taken the national curriculum work, that makes sense. It should NOT have taken a narrow degree list for one purpose and rolled it out across the industry for a completely different purpose!
FPA created this rod against the back of all of its members. No wonder there has been nothing but silence from them since the FASEA proposals were announced last month.
Education isn’t the answer. Never has been and never will be.
The FPA has for a long time now forgotten who they should be representing. Instead of backing it’s members and the FP industry, they’ve chosen a righteousness attitude and mafia tactics. They have succeeded in destroying an industry and in the long term it will hurt many households as good advisers like myself refuse to put up with their nonsense and have enough money to retire so value their time with family more than jumping through their pointless money grabbing strategies designed to further their cause in a stealth like campaign similar to the speed camera debate.
It’s a cash grab all day. Justifying executives payments and salaries. The FPA should be ashamed of themselves for the damage they have done to this industry just because a tiny minority of so called planners like storm financial and a few bank sales people were bad apples. You should of raced out and defended this industry not raced to the government and donbed it in running your hands together at the opportunity to rule, flog courses and charge fees. Your behaviour and tactics are a disgrace FPA and when a person smarter than i figures out a way to circumvent your pathetic strategies, red tape, compliance, huge operating cost and go back to giving people advice without the burden or cost of your enforced stealth via clueless politicians, I shall return to advising and stick my middle finger up at you like the majority of planners want to do.
Shame on you FPA and shame on you pathetic planners who support its ways.
Well said Steven. Sadly every word of yours is too true.
It is unreasonable to set new education standards on existing advisers. The vast majority will not qualify, thus placing their careers and livelihoods in jeopardy, not to mention the jobs of all they employ. The conflict of interest in the FASEA board is unacceptable. They are making decisions to railroad thousands of advisers into their post graduate courses at a significant cost that will do nothing to improve the standard of advice. This only benefits them. It appears that the FPA will do little to help their members. They are quickly becoming an irrelevant organisation. The proposed standards on existing advisers must be scrapped in their entirety. Nothing less is acceptable. The proposed standards impact upon existing advisers’ human rights. Forcing an existing adviser out of business through the creation of a new standard must be rejected. There must be a legal challenge to eliminate these proposed changes. Many existing advisers are at a stage of life and career where they have a family, a business to run, staff to mentor. There is very little time to dedicate to substantial study.
Good words. These words should be shouted from every rooftop, loud enough to deafen the self-interested creatures in FASEA, FPA, Govt et al.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Education standards must lift in order to have credibility as a profession. Rightly or Wrongly you need education professionals to assist in Navigating this. The mentioned education professionals could earn considerably more money in the corporate sector if they chose to so I think we are being quite harsh
Mr Johns sounds like he’s a bit miffed that he wasn’t included on the FASEA Board but would then himself be ‘guilty’ of all the same sorts of conflicts he’s complaining about.
He’s an educator so perhaps he’s interested in getting more people into HIS course or perhaps because he’s a practitioner, he wants the bar set at a level where he can pass without the need for additional study or qualifications. See how easy it is to cast doubt on people’s motives….
perhaps Mr.Johns could have made a difference being on the FASEA FARCE. Seriously, ya just never know!
Oh Dear! How can the FPA dictate ethical behaviour to its membership when it does this! a good reason to not be a member of this dubious organisation. If FASEA go along with it… then we have to question the whole process and FASEA board so we comprehend exactly what went on and why. Publicly.
I don’t like any “independent” body being “given” important/vital information that it was meant to obtain itself after wide consultation and due process. It smacks of bribery at worst and short cuts at best.
Lets hope Deen Sanders et al can rise above this foolish attempt by the FPA to push its own agenda and power.
The FPA sometime ago offered the FPEC to the government as it recognised that it would be better placed as an independent, government operated entity without the ties to an industry group. Sometimes we dont need to reinvent the wheel. If FASEA had ignored the previous work of FPEC and took 12 months to determine the “important/vital information that it was meant to obtain itself after wide consultation & due process” then you’d be accusing them of dragging the chain, wasting time & money by not making use of the previous research by FPEC. You cant have it both ways.
But you shouldn’t be able to sit on both at the same time, surely?