The Financial Planning Standards Board – the global body that administers the CFP designation outside of the US and licenses it to the FPA in Australia – has reported a 3.2 per cent rise in the number of CFPs worldwide in 2017.
The designation now has 175,573 holders around the globe – 5,702 of which reside in Australia – with a goal of reaching 250,000 CFPs by 2025, according to the FPSB website.
The FPA issued a statement welcoming the finding and spruiking the alleged benefits and features of the designation.
“The continued growth of the CFP designation provides a larger pool of highly competent and ethical financial planners,” said FPA chief executive Dante De Gori.
“The CFP designation is the only financial planning designation recognised worldwide that requires financial planners to adhere to world-class professional and ethical standards.”
A spokesperson for the FPA also confirmed to ifa that Australia was not immune to the growth trajectory, with an additional 101 financial advisers joining the CFP ranks in 2017.
However, a number of FPA members and CFP holders have recently questioned the enduring value of the designation in the wake of the state-mandated professional standards regime, including during a heated Twitter exchange between Mr De Gori and members last week.
In December, following the release of proposed guidance by FASEA, Mr De Gori clarified that the government is unlikely to consider holding the CFP sufficient to meet the incoming standards despite the significant cost and time commitments associated with the designation.
“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,” Mr De Gori explained.
The article airing Mr De Gori’s clarification garnered more than 90 reader comments, a great number of which claimed to come from CFP holders now questioning the designation’s worth.
The release of updated global CFP figures comes alongside the shock resignation of academic Mark Brimble from the chairmanship of the Financial Planning Education Council (FPEC) following conflict of interest concerns relating to his concurrent board position with FASEA and employment with Griffith University.
The FPA maintains FPEC is an “independent body” it established in 2011, but the FPA is listed as the council’s owner in records held by government body IP Australia.
[quote=Jape]”I honestly can’t see myself ever completing a designation that I can only maintain through continued membership of the FPA”
Good. Go away and don’t ever join the FPA then. Some other organisations where you must pay a member fee to maintain a designation;
RACS, Royal Australian College of Surgeons
AMA, Australian Medical Association (all states)
ASA, Australian Society of Anesthetists
…and so on. How many more would you like me to list?
[/quote]
Ah, Jape… so defensive of your beloved FPA that you failed to quote the second half of my sentence. I did not say that I would not complete a designation that I can only maintain through professional membership, I said I would not complete a designation that required maintenance of the FPA – a hopeless conflicted and inadequate body of wanna-be’s…. And the very body who tarnished their own CFP designation by ‘grandfathering’.
Actually… updating your certification every year is significantly better than getting a degree qualification and never studying the topic again!
Really… imagine I studied my degree when RBLs were in, and then did no more study on superannuation ever after!!! The arguments against ongoing education required by CFP are pathetic.
Is that your opinion Julie or a paid statement from AMP or CBA, via the professional partner program? It must be from Cba i guess.
YOU are the reason why we are in this FASEA mess. You and your FPA board members caused it via your support of the professional partner program. This relationship resulted in silence from the FPA when their puppet masters being CBA etc, blamed planners for there poor advice and recommended higher education as the solution. You are part of the problem.
Best quote ever!….“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,” Mr De Gori explained.
Well Dante- My hard earned bachelor of commerce just did under this ludicrous FASEA proposal. What are these guys smoking?!
Who cares. I am actually ashamed to be CFP. It’s a hallmark of an adviser that worked at the CBA and were forced to join the FPA. It’s the sign that you belong to an association that is driven by product payments. You can have my CFP it means nothing.
that is why the FPA and by extension the CFP’s are held in such low regard
I’ll be cutting my fees by 50% and become an associate member until I find something better. What’s the point of belonging to a professional association just so Dante and Co can feather their own nest. I’ve been a CFP for 20 years and the number of clients gained or retained by my CFP status = ZIP. It’s twice the cost of any other membership, even CPA Australia is half the price. I’m out. The FPA’s conflicted stance on FASEA, their position on independence, a one line, throw away sentence on their submission to Treasury regarding ASIC self licensing fees going to $17K are all the straws that broke the camels back.
until cpf’s like you and others take the stand – and i mean by the thousands – it will not change.
these associations think, they can run amok without any accountability
you work in the industry and you don’t even know the designation i.e. it is [b]cfp[/b] and not [b]cpf[/b], but who cares it is meaningless anyway, the consuming public has no clue
I thought today was Valentines Day not APRIL FOOLS DAY!!
CFP is as much a joke as the FPA.
Structured Advice with a Transparent fee for service is what the community want, not this rubbish!!
Dante I’m sad to say, seems to believe his own spin. Mark Brimble has belatedly resigned due to conflicts of interest. However, not before he achieved his objective.
The ICAA&NZ have a Financial Specialist designation which ticks more boxes than the FPA ever could with its hopelessly conflicted operations.
totally true. they could have developed their CFP nicely with an AQF designation (8) as a combo: Grad Dip FP and CFP like the CAANZ have
but that takes vision and leadership and putting aside self interest in the pursuit of public interest.
instead, they are hopeless and imploding
you would not want to go near the FPA
The regulators and professional regulators are running around like chooks with their heads cut off trying to find professionalism. They will never find it because they are looking in all the wrong places. Eg Banks that employ graduates and give them sales targets without experienced adviser mentors or adequate support staff. Industry funds whose business strategy is based on a direct marketing campaign that is allowed to twist the truth around returns and asset allocation groupings. Self righteous start up businesses that make marketing claims they have seen the light and the whole industry is corrupt but for them. The common theme is they are all pushing their own interests to sell their business model. Meanwhile, the professionals that have the appropriate qualifications and ongoing PD points are running successful practises rewarded by client referrals which NEGATES THE NEED TO MARKET THEMSELVES. Consequently they have no voice.
I honestly can’t see myself ever completing a designation that I can only maintain through continued membership of the FPA – an organisation who has yet to show that it is able to effectively represent and advocate for its members if recent legislation is anything to go by. I would much rather complete a Masters degree. Once obtained, it can’t be taken away from me and is more readily understood by clients as a qualification, although is still unlikely to be why they choose to engage me as their adviser (after all, there’s so much more to the advice business than pieces of paper).
to be able to use a designation you must continue to pay a fee. this is the irony of it all. it’s a revenue stream for those who come up with the designation to suck in those gullible enough to get one, especially the CFP which has little value in the market
“I honestly can’t see myself ever completing a designation that I can only maintain through continued membership of the FPA”
Good. Go away and don’t ever join the FPA then. Some other organisations where you must pay a member fee to maintain a designation;
RACS, Royal Australian College of Surgeons
AMA, Australian Medical Association (all states)
ASA, Australian Society of Anesthetists
…and so on. How many more would you like me to list?
Do any of these professional associations allow a privileged subset of influential members to use a designation without ever having completed a degree? Imagine if a Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) was about to operate on you, and you found out he never actually went to uni?
Of course if RACS allowed that it would deem the FRACS designation largely worthless and completely erode RACS’ credibility. Yet this is exactly what FPA does. No wonder the regulators ignore the FPA and deem the CFP designation worthless.
nice distinction drawn. hence, the reason why the cfp is worthless and the FPA seen as a marketing body rather than an association of professionals who stand for something
for the record, the AFA are no better
both on the juice to keep their annuity style income coming in and keeping them in the lifestyle they are accustomed to
No, of course they don’t (let people who aren’t qualified use their designation) and that’s a fair enough response. OK. The point being addressed was maintaining membership to maintain a designation – which seems very reasonable to me and many other professions. You already know my view on legacy CFPs which are now only about 15% of all CFPs anyway. Before you say it, yes, 15% is too many.
Jape- What about if my FPA membership is paid for me by my employer (CBA) and I get a 10% discount if I belong to certain employers and not others. Why be part of an association where your membership fees is based on what product manufacturer you belong to?
Employers paying for memberships, even with a bulk discount, is common for many professions. Nothing new or unusual there. However the Professional Partner program has to go.
The FPA is a joke. Got a problem with a minute fraction of planners? FPA solution = More courses they happen to sell. Got a once in a blue moon Storm Financial? FPA solution = Flog more courses at huge cost.
The FPA has sold out its members time and time again. Stabbed them in the back constantly. The have forgotten who they should represent.
If I was ASIC and if ASIC truely understood the FP industry and its real issues as well as the enforced cost and compliance burden, I would abolish the FPA & sim0ly hold one on one interviews with existing planners and set the adfp as the entry for new planners with a mentor system for their first 5 years or so with 1/2 year reviews of their advice.
Problem solved. No FPA nonsense and no massive compliance cost.
If the FPA was a serious organisation looking after its members and their industry we wouldn’t have this pathetically ridiculous SOA no one reads but lawyers and huge running cost. “If” the FPA was serious and not fully focused on fees and growth this would of been solved 10/15 years ago. But no, growth and fees at any cost is their agenda and you FPA members are the suckers who encourage this nonsense. Stand up and leave this mafia mob.
not a bad idea for a long articleship, can enter with adfp but must complete post grad quals.
say maybe 7 years, I think that’s how long it takes the actuaries. 3 years undergrad and 3 years post grad professional qualification and then a final year of supervision (like a medical residency), in between full time work and difficult exams – we have to make it very difficult (and thus seen as worthwhile )
that’s the only way to get back credibility in the public eye and become a profession in our own right
I have called for 1,000 self respecting advisers to hand back their membership certificates to fpa and afa.
i have done it myself so that is 1
who’s with me, please post to :
Dante DeGored,CFP (TM) – registered trade mark and under license from the Financial planning standards board USA
It is time for ASIC and Minister O’Dwyer to get out to the coal face and hear directly from Advisers how ludicrous these proposed new education standards are, as we can see from the many comments that are being posted 99% consider these ideas as absolutely ridiculous and un-achievable
Go directly to your federal member listing your education and experience and costs on all this and then state very clearly that the new FASEA rules will not count any of it !!!
All affected adviser must get in the face of their federal MP’s to get into Over Complicated ODwyer.
I have a 4 year commerce degree with honours (economics and accounting) and have completed all the FPA education modules (a further 2 years of part time study). In addition I have twenty years of annual CPD training and twenty years of experience advising clients and yet my experience and qualifications don’t count for anything under the proposed FASEA rules. I polled my clients. They don’t care about CFP accreditation. It had never crossed their minds. I see no value in renewing my FPA membership and now regret making the $20k plus ‘investment’ in the FPA over the years. It appears the FPA has zero credibility or influence over these negotiations.
Go directly to your federal MP, get in their face and get them to understand how absurd FASEA and ODwyer are. Your MP must go into bat for you against ODwyer.
And once we get some sense from FASEA on past education we then need to get rid of ODwyer.
ODwyer is a cancer to finance advisers.
If a CFP is supposed to show excellence, professionalism and ethics, above and beyond that of the regulator, why is it it counts for nothing with the regulator. Wrote to the FPA regarding the CFP worth and got a reply which included “our brand research is clear that 73% of consumers will only see a planner who has a designation, and CFP is the recognised as both the top designation for consumers and more than 50% of consumers say the will only look for a CFP.” Well having been a CFP for more than 20 years both in Aus and abroad, I have never had a client ask me if I was a CFP, so wonder where their research is done, off hits to their website?
and I wrote them in full on both occasions, they were not grandfathered.
With research, as with anything, you get what you pay for… I suspect that this research was based on a sample limited to those working at Level 4/75 Castlereagh St, Sydney NSW
Recognised worldwide except in Australia. The issue is that it is recognised worldwide by financial advisers and not by the general public. Most of us CFP’s will never have been asked if we have the designations/ quails espoused as being important by our adviser bodies. Here is the dilemma. Our organisations have not promoted our education to the public.
And they cannot while they have ‘grandfathered’ CFPs in their midst. How do you promote education which hasn’t been undertaken?
It’s amazing how many grandfathered CFPs argue vigorously for their “right” to use it, but then claim it’s not really worth anything.
Hey Anonymous I’m one of those grandfathered CFPs and have had that right since 2003. Don’t blame me, the FPA offered it to me so you would have been stupid to not take it. I bet if you were in the same boat you would have done exactly the same?
I would have had the integrity and professionalism to complete the CFP education program anyway, and effectively convert from a grandfathered to a real CFP. As many have done.
You also seem to think the FPA was at fault for making such a foolish offer. I agree. It was a mistake. There has been plenty of opportunity since to rectify that mistake by requiring the grandfathers to complete the CFP education program to retain their designation. Why hasn’t this happened?
Exactly!
I’ve stated it here before, and will again. I [b]don’t[/b] blame the FPA for the CFP program not meeting FASEA standards. It filled a gap, at the time, but the times have changed.
I [b]do[/b] blame the FPA for not promoting it for what it is, or should have been, a publicly and aggressively promoted differentiator that that prospective clients can trust (see the CPA or CA marques for examples of how this should be done).
The grandfathered CFPs aren’t actually the enemy here, its the other rank and file members of the FPA. How could the FPA have advocated that clients should only trust a CFP, when by inference they woud be denigrating the vast proportion of their membership (read revenue source) who aren’t CFPs?
Maybe the CFP designation is worth something overseas but it is worth S#@# in Australia which is where my business is based.
What a joke the FPA is. Negotiation and lobbying skills of an 8 year old!
Dante says “whereas with a qualification, once you’ve obtained that knowledge they can’t take that away from you,”
Sorry Dante, my 1996 Macquarie University Bachelor of Economics degree with a double major in Economics and Business Law is proposed to be worth nothing to FPEC / FASEA / FPA / ODwyer.
How can you seriously make such comments and believe your own BS ?
FPA / CFP / FASEA/ ODwyer are all an absolute disgrace.
I was sitting next to a CFP with thirty years experience yesterday,(I have over 18 years exp myself) and we were lamenting the stupidity of the proposed education standards. Continuing education, which by design is supposed to keep our knowledge current after formal studies finish, should be deemed sufficient to allow degrees completed in relevant tertiary institutions to count toward the new requirements, REGARDLESS of when the degree was completed.
The new requirements will push experienced planners out of the industry and create issues with the ability of the industry to supervise adequately, those coming up through the ranks through the new Professional Year requirements.
The FPA told me that only 3000 advisers have clarity about the education requirements as they stand, leaving 22000 advisers unclear what they will be asked to do.
There is NO COMMON SENSE applying to these proposals. I should not be surprised!!!
The FPSB needs to remove control of CFP in Australia from the FPA. The FPA has devalued the CFP brand by allowing people with minimal education to use it… the notorious “grandfathers”. This is also why Dante carries on with all his “designation” double dutch to try and explain why CFP is perceived as educationally worthless. It is all about protecting the undereducated “grandfathers” who hold positions of influence within the FPA.
The CFP education program is as good if not better than most Grad Dips. But because there is no official difference between those who have done the graduate level CFP training, and those who waltzed in 20 years ago with nothing more than a DFP and a lot of product sales training, every CFP holder in Australia gets devalued to the lowest common denominator.
I am sick of people putting down the grandfathered CFP. I am one, and proud I met the conditions at the time to become one, and have been a planner for 18 years running my own business. No complaints, no issues and satisfied clients who refer others to me. Maybe some people need to get over the fact that a piece of paper doesn’t make you a good planner. Strong ethics, an empathy with clients and willingness to help and do the best by the client is what it takes. Sadly all the point scoring and chest beating about mine is better than yours has diverted a lot of the attention in this argument. I would like to continue to look after my clients for another 20 years but sadly the new education rules as they stand aren’t going to allow that……just sayin..
yes you qualified at the time. good for you. you need to re-qualify again.
those pieces of paper you speak of are “worth something” you need to put in a lot of effort and write thousands of words of essays and exams (and pass) to get one.
they aren’t just nothings handed out for free.
try to get a masters degree or even complete one post graduate subject at a masters level and you will know just what i am talking about.
ask anyone who has completed ANY masters degree whether it was easy. They will tell you no, it is not easy, it is a difficult task.
Dante and most of the FPA board are sick of people putting down the grandfathered CFP too. That’s why they vigorously defend it and refuse to compel the grandfathers to lift their education standards. It’s also why the FPA has zero credibility with regulators. Defending the grandfathered CFPs is more important to Dante and the FPA board than raising professional standards or reducing unnecessary compliance.
The reason so many grandfathers “met the conditions at the time” is because the FPA lowered the conditions of entry to something well below what the community would expect from a professional. The FPA tries to use the excuse of the first accountants and doctors and lawyers not having degrees when those professions started. But that was a very long time ago. Grandfathered CFPs had the bar lowered for them by the FPA in the early 2000s when degrees were commonplace and widely expected for all professionals.
I feel many are confusing on the term “grandfathered”. for the man above with 18 years as a planner, im sure he did the 8 subjects for DFP and this was later extended to 12 subjects but not really much more content i understand. just breaking up some of the models. Grandfathered means those from the 80’s who may have also held the ability to advise in unit trusts etc are those that may have been given leniency due to past experience. Im confused. I completed my 8 subjects by about 2001 or 02 and gained CFP. Am i a grandfathered CFP?
All CFP awarded pre 2003 (when the DFP was 1-8 and conducted at an Undergraduate level) are legacies or “grandfathered” as they didn’t do any CFP course subjects as the CFP program itself didn’t exist back then. Put another way, if you ever used a fax machine, especially with thermal paper, and you hold the CFP, you’re probably a legacy.
how can it be as good as a grad dip ? a grad dip has about 8 subjects and an AQF rating at level 8 of the AQF framework.
the CFP has neither, yet purportedly written at level 9, that is someone’s opinion, not a statement of fact and worth nothing
Agreed. As soon as the CFP marque is removed from the world of qualification, and uplifted into one of marketing and differentiation as the FPSB intended, it will become worth something. That’s the point of a professional association and designations like CFP.
You don’t need a member of the Australian Institute of Architects to design your new house…. but I bet most punters would want one too.
precisely well put.
I can definitely confirm that the CFP program was at least on par with the Grad Dip of FP I completed… Unfortunately you also hit the nail on the head in saying CFP is worthless until it gets taken from those who didn’t have to prove they deserve it. I don’t pay for FPA membership so don’t even bother mentioning I’ve done it.
CFP seems to now be more for the planners who have little in the way of real qualifications so they market the designation they were gifted.
I only wish I had your wisdom and forethought! I foolishly spent a lot of time and money on the CFP program and now have the honour of paying large annual fees for a designation that doesn’t differentiate me from planners with a bare minimum of education.
How many Grad Dip exemptions did you get for your CFP units?
Under current proposal both CFP & FChFP are not worth the paper its written on and being a member’s of both is also currently not worth it, extremely disappointing, took a lot of time to study and expense
Yep. I don’t even bother paying for professional membership to use my ‘designations’. Clients have never cared about them anyways.
“The CFP designation is the only financial planning designation recognised worldwide that requires financial planners to adhere to world-class professional and ethical standards.”….. but isn’t enough for existing planners to remain a planner in Australia….Just Sayin.
The FPA is a disgrace. They don’t act in the interest of Australians and they don’t act in the interest of planners. Lump sum payments from firms like CBA,AMP and Bridges all product manufacturers. The Non disclosure of these payments which are then hidden as member fees. Their silence on the CBA mess in return for new members. Now they are placing the money they’ll get from providing education courses or some link to these courses above the needs of their very own members. Their FASEA submission stated two sentences on prior experience and claimed 14 points out of 100 for experience, and pages on FPEC, you’ve got to be joking. I’ll be handing in my CFP and just remain an associate member until I join another body that meets TPB standards. Shameful.
The irony of the FPA ending up with grubby membership money from CBA is that at the time that CBA made its adviser workforce join, the FPA had put out some pretty inflammatory statements regarding those same advisers. There were many in the CBA camp who decided to go with AFA membership instead as the lesser of two evils given the nature of the aspersions cast.
“The CFP designation is the only financial planning designation recognised worldwide that requires financial planners to adhere to world-class professional and ethical standards.”
Dante, the proof will be how you handle the education stuff up with FASEA, as a CFP, this will determine whether your actions match your words!!
Obviously people who havent yet realised its a waste of time and money…
Waste of time and money.
You, and the previous commentator, would not be able to pass CFP5 anyway. Hence the vitriol!
Really? I have more education to my name already than a mere CFP designation (and believe I would easily pass CFP5) and yet I share Warren and Anonymous’ vitriol. It is a complete waste of time and money….
Good. Keep believing that. Don’t actually get it done by any means. Just as long as you think you could do it, or even try, that’s fine.
a masters is a far more extensive qualification than a cfp and is [b]ACTUALLY AT AQF LEVEL 9[/b][u][/u], not a farce that is the CFP
+1 loads more than just a crappy CFP
Jape, just for clarity, I have a Master in Financial Planning, am a SMSF Specialist Advisor, am an Accredited Aged Care Professional and have a CFP, completed in the last two years, so wrote the CFPC. This education debacle does not educationally affect me. But for the Masters I have completed which is on the FPEC list (currently), I would not be able to say that. How would I have fared if I had my CFP alone, thus the reason for the statements above. While I am not affected, it does affect the people that work around me and the stability of the profession I work in, so to accuse them of vitriol is a bit rich. Until the FPA can show some sort of value in their product, other than being able to say I have gone above and beyond, in the current climate people will continue to question the value. Instead of berating them, stand with them as this affects us all.
your comments clarifies thank you.
a lot of the vitriol is not aimed at those practitioners who have earned their CFP but at the FPA, the way the FPA have gone about the CFP’s marketing and it’s validation in the current context.