In October last year, FASEA adopted the list of approved education pathways assembled by the Financial Planning Education Council (FPEC), an “independent” body established by the FPA in 2011, after the list was provided to the government body as a potential standard for the mandatory education regime.
However, in a video posted to the FPA’s YouTube channel and distributed to members yesterday, Mr De Gori said this list – which he described as being “gifted” to FASEA – was created to “assess degrees for new financial planners” as a pathway into the FPA’s CFP program, not advisers who are already practising.
“It was never intended to be the standard for existing financial planners,” he said.
“The FPA has never advocated for existing financial planners to have to complete an approved undergraduate degree. The FPA position is to continue to support and recognise those members who have completed studies that exceed the minimum RG146 requirements.”
Mr De Gori said the FPA’s position on education pathways for existing advisers has been “mapped out” in the organisation’s whitepaper outlining a ‘100-point plan’, which would recognise individual advisers’ existing studies as either “meeting or contributing towards degree equivalence”.
A number of FPA members recently challenged the industry association over potentially inappropriate relationships with FPEC and FASEA.
In response to these concerns, an FPA spokesperson clarified the relationship with FPEC and added that the association will advocate on behalf of advisers that have “proactively completed studies that exceed the minimum RG146 requirements”.
Mr De Gori’s full comments regarding the use of the FPEC approved qualifications list as the standard for existing advisers can be viewed below.
Any voting members interested in a calling for an extra-ordinary meeting of the FPA and rocking a few boats?
Depends on the objective. If it is to force the FPA to ditch grandfathered CFPs, so that the FPA can then credibly push for all remaining CFP holders to be given FASEA and Exam exemption, then yes.
If it is to force the FPA to take a stronger stand against any sort of degree requirement, and argue that experience alone is sufficient, then no.
This is the problem. For the FPA to satisfy its members and be effective its in lobbying, it has to choose whether to be a professional association or an industry body. It has to be willing to alienate a subset of its existing members in order to move forward. At the moment they are sitting on the fence, alienating everyone, and going out backwards.
The FPA made the decision to be a professional association some years back. However they are failing. Professional Associations don’t get payments from product manufacturers. The meeting to be called later this year will … Resolution 1) remove the professional partner program 2) clearly separate professional partner fees from member fees 3) send a firm message that the FPA’s position is to recognize commerce, finance related degrees greater than 10 years old. 3) Send a message to the FPA about the rooky error of gifting FASEA the FPEC list of courses. Watch this space. Details to come.
The FPA might have “chosen” to be a professional association. Now they need to commit to it, by ditching grandfathered CFPs and cosy institutional deals.
[b]Dante! Dante![/b] Are you listening?!? Here is your only lifeboat!
But who gave FASEA the idea to not recognise prior learning if longer than 10 yrs? Surely it wasn’t the FPA, so who was it?
Why don’t you ALL call the FPA’s bluff and resign. Then they will not be able to say they represent anyone and you will not continue to be screwed over by these outstandingly ordinary, self-interested, no-Advising individuals who are seeking to “monetise” their position(s).
no way my CFP is too precious
Yet it isn’t worth anything under the education requirements.
YOUR CFP IS WORTHLESS NOW!
Maybe take it easy on the FPA here people, it’s not as though they are the Government and passed this legislation. The FPA are managing this the best way possible at the moment and there is a lot yet to be determined – specifically how much study existing Advisers will actually have to do.
exactly, lets not panic yet, i am an existing adviser so i am expecting to be grandfathered because of my CFP and degree that is more 10 years old
are you for real?
Were you also expecting to be exempted from Opt-In as promised by the FPA because you are a member of a professional association? Were you also expecting LIF to be thrown out once the FPA pointed out it’s methodological flaws and anti consumer impact? You really are a quite an optimist.
Guys i understand your frustration. But for $400k pa, what do you expect from the CEO.
Look at comparable bodies, like the CPA, they were paying malley $1.9m
Dante is [u]only[/u][b][/b] getting $400k, that entitles members to a few tweets about his life’s 4 passions, football…. financial planning is one of the 4
You raise an interesting point. eerie co-incidence
CPA Designation, no AQF designation, marketed as a premier qualification, millions of dollars of members money wasted including $4.9m payout to former CEO, members left in tatters and bitter association imploding
FPA Designation, no AQF designation, marketed as if it were, millions of dollars of members money squandered, members left in tatters and bitter association imploding
What a joke. Almost the wage of Australia’s PM. You’re telling me someone on $400K doesn’t understand the concept of a courses aimed at a specialist course like the CFP program and entry courses into the financial planning profession?
Don’t be so optimistic. Remember the FPA have done nothing to address the actual problem in the Industry – that is vertical integration – because the Instos get on the Board and cosy up to the FPA. The former CEO even works for one of their Dealer Groups now.
The best bet (as always) is to follow the “self-interest” / money trail and that will lead to the most likely outcome.
The FPA have NOT advocated for our Industry – they have advocated for all the intermediaries and “rent seekers” in the Industry who are not stupid enough to actually attempt to advise clients in an ethical and considered way. They have long ago worked out that there are far easier ways to make money in this game and it is not by being an Adviser.
A Bachelor of Business (over 10 years ago), a Diploma of Financing Planning, 30 years experience and an unblemished reputation = back to school to do another degree or leave the industry by 1st January 2024? How does that serve existing clients or good for the consumer seeking quality advice from an experienced adviser? Maybe the FPA board needs renewal and the CEO should go? My bet is that will get some traction.
All those conflicted clowns on FASEA should be run out of town and the process needs to start from scratch with a new panel that is appropriately QUALIFIED ie in common sense- which those academics that live in fairyland so obviously lack.
Some pretty interesting comments in this debate and I think there is validity on both sides of the debate, CFPs who attained the designation via coursework (i.e. the CFP Program) should have this recognised in part (or full) by FASEA, assuming they have maintained their CPD (which of course they have via the FPAs CPD Policy – requiring 40 CPD points pa). Do we put on timeframe on how far you can go back for you CFP to count? Should it be 10yrs? As for CFPs that were “granted” it in the old days, sorry – but you have to upgrade your qualifications if what you currently have doesn’t meet the AQF level. Given that the CFP designation contains units that can be used as ‘credits’ towards an AQF9 qualification (aka “Masters of Financial Planning) through a number of higher education institutions, it would seem only fair and logical that CFPs who completed their designation receive due recognition. It should be noted that FASEA have yet to consult the industry on approved pathways and this will occur over the coming months. You can bet the FPA will be strongly lobbying for some form of recognition for CFP designate planners who have completed relevant education at an AQF Level 9, being higher than the AQF7 Bachelor degree standard. Most of the FASEA Board representatives should understand the concepts and application of RPL & RCC, so I’m hopeful that this will factor significantly in the design of approved pathways for existing advisers.
Whilst not making excuses for the FPA (or AFA for that matter), there as been a lot of political interference in the industry over the last decade and if the Liberals didn’t do “something”, then a future Labor Government under Shorten were going to do much more damage to the industry to protect their industry fund ‘donors’. Recall that FoFA came out of the Labor years (2007-2013) and some of the finer elements of FoFA that have caused administrative nightmares were because of Labor trying to screw the industry. One would hope that given FASEA has representatives from across the spectrum, it will see ‘common sense’ and try to balance the needs of consumers vs the potential reality of decimating an industry if too many experienced planners leave because it’s “all to hard”. Basic economics will tell you that if you reduce supply with static demand, prices will increase. Given Australian’s aging and increasing population growth, demand for financial advice is likely to increase, and so the price of advice will also rise. Surely one would hope that even the consumer group representatives are financially literate enough to understand this.
As for those commentators given Dante De Gori a hard time, put your hand up if you think you can do a better job. Given his prior education/professional standards role prior to elevation to CEO, I can think of no-one better positioned to represent FPA members. In this very forum, commentators gave the AFA CEO Phil Kewin a hard time over budget overspends, for which he was in the CEO role for just over 4 months of the FY period. All I’m saying is give them a chance and if you feel that strongly about the way the debate is going, write to them directly or see them to discuss your views and importantly, offer solutions!
The reason FPA is copping so much flak is because they have been juggling the completely incompatible requirements of real CFPs and grandfathered CFPs.
Real CFPs who have spent lots of time and money on undergraduate degreees and masters level education are outraged that FPA has been ineffective in having FASEA recognise that prior education.
Grandfathered CFPs who have never completed any education beyond basic diploma level are outraged that FPA has been ineffective in convincing FASEA that they should ever do any degree level training.
Bottom line is that no-one in govt takes the FPA seriously, and all its members are angry. The FPA cannot continue this juggling act. They need to put an immediate end to the ludicrous charade of grandfathered CFPs. The only way for the FPA to survive as a professional association is to stop pandering to those members who have resisted professionalism.
What do you expect then? DeGori is paid by the dark side and has to jump to their whims. Anonymous above asks does anyone here think they could do a ‘better’ job . . . nobody could do any better given that poor ‘ol DeGori is about as conflicted and any brown bear can be currently. But all WE hear about or clients hear about is how conflicted advisers are. I work on commission ONLY as a riskie and for my entire 33 years in this industry I have NEVER acted in a conflicted way or felt conflicted about anything to do with remuneration. The very last thing on my mind was which company pays what – they were all about the same. I ALWAYS focused on the client and their needs, long before the FPA made it fashionable to do so.
Consider the quality of CPD points when I can pick these up bt gotng to an FPA. AFA or dealership conference and just being in the room where a ‘guru’ is talking about a topic. I can doze through the presentation or play computer games or read a book and so long as I have been marked off as having attended, I get CPD points thus implying that my professional education has been upgraded.
Ill-informed comment was made in the past regarding the introduction of a Nursing degree and using the experience as a model for Financial Planners education.
Upon graduation those who gained Nursing degrees were allowed to do the same tasks as Registered Nurses (RNs) [who had been trained via the hospital training procedure] as well as more advanced procedures.
RNs are not permitted to carry out these advanced procedures.
RNs (without degrees) still happily operate in hospitals throughout Australia to this day.
A simple step would be for FASEA to say a degree or degree equivalent means 1) any planners who as at Jan 1 2024 who has been in the industry for a continuous period 25/30 years with CPD continuous over that timeframe are grandfathered, 2) less than 20 years has a degree according to CPA Australia’s degree definition or 3) less than 20/ 15 years as at 2024 must have a Grad dip in FP, A Masters in FP or Bachelor in FP or a Bachelor Degree in a finance related degree plus a Grad Certiicate or Advanced Diploma in FP.
What an absolute disgrace. Planners need a new association as the FPA & AFA have failed miserably. Bunch of clowns the lot of them. There is more conflict in these associations & ASIC than any planner out in the market.
I’m looking at further study already… I’ve moved on.. but seriously heads need to role for this blunder. Sack him. Did the FPA ask for member consultation prior to this? I didn’t hear anything. We need to look forward and think how are we going to get new people to replace us now you need such as specialist degree and we’re competing with a range of other degrees. How will we prevent over regulation in the future? Fooled with FoFA, Fooled with LIF, Fooled with FASEA, we are truly the #$$@$% fools. We need to call a meeting and get rid of many of the directors in the FPA left over from the 1980’s. We need to get rid of the FPA’s professional partner program. The FPA needs to go back to looking after planners and we need to start cleaning up the industry.
To do that, we need leaders with a vision. the FPA is no different to the CPA, it needs a complete clean out
[b]SHOUT THIS COMMENT FROM THE ROOFTOPS [/b]- – EVERYONE!! WELL SAID McGLASHEN!!!
What clowns we have in the FPA.
The REA would never tolerate the destruction of their business the way the FPA has allowed the regulator to run mad. Everyday we are subject to gross distortions of the facts by ASIC in its desire for press coverage to justify it’s being. Yet the FPA is silent. Also the large institutions are pathetic in their response.
See the reaction from the FPA if conferences no longer qualified for CPD points. Wait for the screaming at the loss of revenue.
So the 100 point plan might help keep a number of planners in the industry. there is a lot of talk from the FPA and others but we are still to see anything positive or forward progress. We as planners know to succeed we need a PLAN. Don’t wait for a very slow reaction from FPA or others, which may fail anyway. We need to take control of our future so lets all start a united campaign or better still, lets crowd fund a challenge through the courts. And then start a political campaign aimed squarely at the likes of madam o’d. if we sit on our ar#e and wait for an outcome, there will be no outcome.
Over Complicated ODwyer is a curse to Financial advisers and she needs to go.
She is a disgrace.
think this is where the buck stops – she is making a name for herself and with friends in media like Tom Elliott she is being championed in everything she does.
What a surprise, a Financial Planner Association that failed its fee members again! Why are we not concerned that the FPA and the FSC are in lock-step with the banks and FSC???
How much did you make out of this deal ‘Dante De Money’, you should think of members who pay huge fees instead of your own interests. As a loyal member of the FPA I am disgusted.
I am in a position where a Grad Dip in Financial Planning is worthless. And the same educators are now spruiking their new beaut courses. Its simple. Everyone should be refunded their CFP course fees, and their FPA memberships. Given the CFP designation is now worthless, why would anyone stump up circa $1200 for an FPA membership. Seriously this is a mess.
Lets have an industry full of Gen Y with no life experience. This is a recipe for another disaster
I think this has become such a mess that nobody is going to be able to clean it up. The Minister is incompetent in allowing the mess to accumulate without any leadership. The representative bodies allowed it to ferment and wittingly or unwittingly undermined the integrity of the process. Advisers are not organised as a group to mount a real counter to the proposals. Yes, its a mess all right. Now, who has organised the Gerney to wash it down the drain and start afresh with CLIENT outcomes in mind?
I think we need as Mr Trump has said to “DRAIN THE SWAMP””
It’s one thing for them to make a mistake, but the complete disaster since this was released, De Gori and Marshen should resign. Is this really the best to represent our industry? All cfps are now worthless. It’s not even a qualification, just a designation, ie, an internal training course.
You draw a very important distinction that is missed by pretty much everyone. The CFP is an internal training course with little or no validity outside of being a member of the FPA. In fairness to the FPA, they have given plenty of warning about their course not meeting AQF standards
When has FPA given warning about CFP not meeting AQF standards? I certainly wasn’t given any such warning when I handed over buckets of cash to the FPA to do the CFP course. I was told it was “Masters degree level training”. The first time I have seen any FPA comment about it potentially not meeting AQF standards was in Dante’s pile of excuse waffle issued on 24 Jan.
If I don’t get 5 units credit in a Grad Dip for my “Masters level” CFP training I’ll be demanding a full refund for all CFP course fees plus compensation for the time spent on it, calculated at my standard hourly charge out rate. And I bet I won’t be the only one.
If you refer back to your coursework folders they say it all in there. “not accredited to AQF levels”
“If you don’t get 5 units”, good luck with that, I am with you, and hope you do.
I am a youngish adviser and meet the qualification criteria. I am against FASEA excluding older experienced advisers who are desperately needed to continue in the industry
I am against any “association” peddling designations – this alphabet soup has become the norm, and they are a gimmick, and are mostly worthless.
Nope. Just checked. My CFP course notes don’t say that at all. They are from 4-5 years ago. What is the age of the course notes you have that give this “AQF warning”?
mine did make some mention of that but it was a while ago maybe 7 years or so ago
I feel like I’m missing something here. CFP has never been a qualification and I don’t recall it ever being sold to FPA members as a qualification – it has always been a designation that recognises industry experience and a code of ethics, therefore, it isn’t ‘worthless’.
the CFP coursework is not worthless. It’s completion is mandated, to use the CFP designation as a member of the FPA. the FPA value it greatly.
Others, however are saying it’s completion is worth the equivalent of 1 unit (in Gd Dip FP. at Deakin) and perhaps elsewhere, and FASEA are giving it no recognition
But, it’s an important designation, for the FPA members to hold nonetheless as it means something to the FPA and it’s members
But you don’t stop being a Civil Engineer because you choose not to belong to an Industry body – do you.
If you resign from the FPA – you cannot “use” the CFP designation – that tells you how valuable it really is. Nothing to do with competency!
But the same is true of any other designation issued by an association, that’s what a designation is, a brand, a mark, nothing more but people give it enormous importance to it because it is marketed that way.
It’s not the association’s fault, it’s the fault of the person who is gullible enough to succumb to the ploy
the only people who value designations are the one’s who hold it, so it is important in the sense that it is important to the one who has it, but not for others
it has no value in the market, as there are thousands of designations no one knows what they are
you cannot use the CA, if you are not a fee paying member of CAANZ
CPA, if you are no longer a member of CPAA
CFA, if you are no longer a paying member of CFA
I have a CFP that I earned the hard way, but I did so as a point of differentiation, not in the expectation that it was a qualification.
The FPA needs to and probably should have years ago, positioned it itself as a brand that stands for something (eg. Chartered Accountants or Australian Institute of Architects) and marketed its membership to the populace as being somebody they can trust amongst the mire – the FPA should represent its members, not the industry as a whole.
To their detriment, they didn’t do so, probably because to get any credibility they would have had to significantly cull their own membership and their revenue streams. The union-like path they have chosen to tread is well past its used by date.
the FPA did try. remember the dazza campaign ? it was not well received though. definitely spot on though about chartered accountant’s they will say anything to position their brand and members above everyone else
But, they too haven’t fared too well, their old CEO departed abruptly and they have a new CEO, who is doing a “strategic review”
the FPA is not alone, all associations have lost their relevance because they forget why they exist, to serve their members interest, instead, they keep lining their’s or their mates pockets with exorbitant salaries, most recent example being the CPA
The Chair of the FPEC and FASEA member, Mark Brimble (Griffith University):
1. sets standards which, incredibly, Griffith University will benefit from (and evaluates other providers).
2. receives royalties from a prescribed textbook.
3. holds a professor job at Griffith Univeristy.
4. commissioned by “No More Practice Education” to write research and PD materials.
5. receives distinguished service award from the FPA.
Imagine if I had these conflicts as a financial planner … do as I say, not as I do. A case study in ethics and conflict of interest?
You forgot to mention…
6. His job & tenure is determined by student enrollments.
7. The more exam papers marked, the more assignments marked, the more students enrolled, the more students you get paid.
8. The more students you have enrolled the more assistance you get.
9. The more assistance you get the more time you can spend writing your own text book.
We need to move on and just do the study or make plans but people need to be held accountable and the FPA surely stuffed up.
People it ok. Kellogs will release a new Diploma of Financial Planning that will suffice. The issue with all this was not the standard, but the application of such. Too many courses, where attendance was the only prerequisite were permitted. And what the point were CE points. This industry is too compromised. FPA will have member outflow, when it was its time to stand up, it simply did nothing.
From what I have seen through this proposed “education” standards it appears to have not taken into account of the greatest educator – experience.
Education standards and ongoing CPD points are helpful however experience must be accounted for in this process.
Quite uncommonly I am at a loss for words. One word though: [b]WTF?[/b] !!! What took DiGori/FPA so long to jump on this after the FASEA gooses released the list? Much back peddling and face-saving going on here, methinks . . . disgraveful and disgusting. Shame on you DiGori and FPA.
Agreed, FPA only reacting to such strong criticism, if they truely instructed FASEA of their direction they would have reacted instantly.
FPA you are a disgrace.
And to top it off they release their announcement just before Christmas when everyone is in holiday mode and less likely to notice or talk about it. Funny that. Just like thieves in the night and taking a leaf out of the politician handbook
Well, no doubt they were all enjoying holidays. Something that those of us who are self employed don’t get. I certainly hope they lived it up with their salaries paid by our membership fees
RESIGN. You don’t get paid at the level Danti gets to make this mistake. This just smells of butt covering and backtracking. We are not that stupid. Why would the FPA be so stupid to give a list of approved Universities as pathway into the CFP course? FPEC is a list aimed at an advance course. Can’t these academics do their own research? By the FPA handing over this list it’s natural for FASEA to interpret as what planners want.
On another note that somewhat relates to this: The CPA have a list of courses that meet pathway into their CPA program. Their entry requirements are as follows: [i]To meet the degree requirement for the provisional assessment, you will need an Australian Bachelor degree or 12-unit Master degree in accounting, business, commerce or economics[/i]
Why have we excluded students and current advisers that have a Bachelor of Business, Commerce, Finance or Economics degree. The Accountancy profession don’t have a time frame on their degrees and they haven’t limited entry requirements to a specific financial planning degree.
The FPA seems unaware that a typical Financial Planning degree has only minimal new subjects actually written. The majority are taken from within the school or other schools such as Law. This response just shouts of incompetence, and lack of knowledge of academia.
The FPA board are either barely literate or severely compromised by vested interests or they would have jumped on to the FASEA course list straight away. Why has it taken so long for us advisers (many of whom only have a diploma) to figure out that the requirement for an adviser with 10 plus years of industry knowledge and annual ongoing training to go back to university for 2 years was ridiculous.
Just grandfather existing advisers who have more than 10 years experience in the industry. I would guarantee every adviser who has 10+ years experience know more about financial advice than everyone at ASIC combined. What could we possible learn from going back to university????? The teacher would have a nightmare as we would all know way more than them and anyway what financial adviser is going to quit and be a teacher? It will be compliance muppets teaching advisers and they dont actually know anything other than how to tick boxes.
Clients don’t care about the box ticking and wasted time on compliance SOA’s etc, they care about positive outcomes and experienced advisers are the best way to get positive outcomes.
GREAT WORDS – WISH i KNEW WHO YOU WERE SO i COULD KNOW WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS UTTER COMMON SENSE aNONYMOUS! tHANK YOU. (sorry – caps!)
At the same time, the FPA issued a 10 page FAQ document. It contains this alarming statement about the CFP program ….
“It is accredited outside the Australian Qualification Framework, thus equivalence is hard to draw.”
So after all these years of saying it was at “Masters” or “AQF9” level, they are now backtracking and saying “equivalence is hard to draw”!!
Hmmm….Looks like they have now changed their website. Previously they referred to the CFP as a “qualification”. Now they are calling it a “designation”. I’ve been monitoring it. They’ve been caught out. CFP students should be feeling rather misled and deceived.
Yeah, I’ve just found some old FPA emails that specifically refer to it as a qualification.
Yes! Let’s eliminate those “unintended consequences”, and, oh, those obvious conflicts of interest held by members of FASEA and FPEC, the ones we don’t like to talk about at dinner parties …
You mean the three board members who clearly have vested interests as they are in the education industry. We aren’t allowed to even have a conflict of interest but it’s o.k for the FASEA board who are deciding our futures.