Speaking at the SMSF Association National Conference in Sydney, FASEA chief executive Deen Sanders said education is always useful and powerful, regardless of where that education came from.
“I want to be very clear – education, no matter what you’ve done, or where it’s come from, is never a waste,” he said.
“I’m not saying you always get the full value out of it, that’s a different thing, but it would be wrong and dismissive to say that because you spent time getting a specialist certification or a professional designation, that it was a waste of time.
“I hear that argument and it’s a great shame because it’s never a waste of time.”
However, Dr Sanders added that neither professional designations nor experience would be enough on their own to replace a qualification, noting experience, designations and qualifications were all different from one another.
“It doesn’t mean you have the same thing in relation to qualifications, a designation is not a qualification, it is a recognition of professional commitment, it is recognition of particular education relevant to your particular practice,” he said.
“It’s not the same thing as a qualification as the law makes unfortunately very clear, and we need to apply the law in a very specific way so we can deliver on the community expectations.”
Likewise, an advisers’ years of experience are not a sufficient replacement for a qualification, Dr Sanders said.
“57 years’ experience does not mean you’re qualified, it means you are deeply wise and experienced, but it’s not the same thing as qualified,” he said.
“That doesn’t mean it should be discounted, in fact it should be recognised and valued, deeply valued, by you and by your colleagues, and by the community, but it isn’t the same thing as qualified.”
Dr Sanders did, however, specify that both an adviser’s designations and years of experience should count towards meeting the education requirement, adding that some universities will recognise the value of decades working in the industry and provide course credits accordingly.
“This memorandum provides, pretty clearly, that a designation in and of itself is not sufficient, the length of time that an adviser has been in the industry is not itself a relevant consideration,” he said.
“That doesn’t mean they don’t contribute, but by themselves they are not answers.”
Dr Sanders also used the speech to provide commentary on the proposed ‘10-year rule’, specifying it is not a FASEA policy but is being considered as a measure of relevance for degrees.
He answered a number of pre-vetted questions from SMSFA stakeholders, but did not take any questions from the floor.
The FPA-run CFP program saw 101 new advisers join its ranks in 2017, according to a recent statement from the FPA on the global growth of CFP take-up.
[b]Bring back the FPA 100 Point Plan![/b]
you guys really don’t get it – in amongst the machinations of the LIF review and the FOFA and the best interest duty our elected officials were snowballed into slipping this totally unsupported – impractical – commericially unworked requirement through – sheez Sanders says only 10 hrs a week – at basic charge out for a principal of $350 and hour + the cost of the course (opportunity cost at its most basic) that is one hell of an exercise in futility.
My experience with the academia – is that it is so far removed from commercial practice and borderline useless for an exercise in tokenism – quick lets down to the classroom for studies in gender equity and all manner rubbish- _
All I can think is the industry funds guys must be rolling around on the floor laughing knowing this will keep us bitching for the next 5- 10 years and preoccupied – so the ISN clients – through the ISN backhanderes are safe to backdoor money to the labor party. So simple in execution.
Contrary view but I think all of us do need a relevant/related degree and other further studies.
However it is absurd to say that relevant/related degrees aren’t relevant due to time.
One, the tax office doesn’t view degrees as depreciation, and two: Adam Smith, double entry accounting, Donaghue v Stevenson, Maslows hierarchy of needs, statistics, CAPM and diversification theory, (amongst others) aren’t stupid just because they’re old.
Agreed. Which is why the FPA 100 point proposal makes sense (as it stands), whereas the FASEA proposal doesn’t.
What a load of DRIBBLE.
And sucked in to the new 101 CFPs. You’ve just been PUNKED by Mr Sander and his FASEA
It’s “drivel” genius…and well done new CFPs, you will replacing a Wordsmith like this in the fullness of time.
Why don’t you go get some lessons in grammar before criticising others CEJ… ie “you will replacing a Wordsmith “
Good pick up there. Well done.
Has Dr Dean been advised that his qualifications would seem to be pass the use by date, evidenced by his plain ridiculous stupidity….. was he wearing yellow fuzzy hair and big red shoes….. because incompetence foolishness, ridiculousness, don’t seem to adequately cover these comments so i’m Thinking CLOWN ? is the only conclusion
HERE’S the answer – listen up all! Have the minister and these other muppets refer to the industry luminary, thought leader and great all ’round guy DON TRAPNELL . .. look me in the eye and tell me this guy won’t do what’s best for clients AND advisers in one fell swoop! I am NOT part of Synchron and have never even met Don but I have followed with great interest his career and movements and opinions and greater actions through the press for over a decade now. This guy knows what he’s doing. tHE MUPPETS SHOULD GET HIM AND OTHERS JUST LIKE HIM THAT REPRESENT TRUE THOUGHT LEADERSHIP AND CLIENT and ADVISER BEST INTEREST AND FORMULATE THE WAY FORWARD. cOULD BE DONE IN A WEEK! (sorry re the caps!) . Someone tell me where my thinking here is flawed. I submit it is not! Cheers all.
Further to my comment above I should just say even if they (regulators/FPA FASEA) don’t like someone like Don, their conflicted interests aside, then why the hell haven’t they sought out similar people from our industry who are widely known and RESPECTED to have a forum on the way forward to fix this. A BINDING forum! IF they chose the right folks, and it wouldn’t be too hard even for FPA and ASIC muppets, then this could all be settled in a month at the most. It REALLY is NOT rocket science. It is [b]common sense[/b]. Experienced advisers are overflowing with common sense. Let’s start TODAY!
.
How many advisers wouldn’t generally agree with and go forward with common sense solutions from the likes of industry stalwarts like Don Trapnall and others I could name that we all know and respect? Now THAT would be the best form of self regulation AND, while they’re at it, they could come up with a solution to these bad apples – I have no doubt they could. They may have to employ the services of the (Shock/horror) life companies though to do that.
.
Sorry, am I talking too much common sense and[i] ‘getting things actually bloody done’ [/i]here ASIC/FPA/FASEA?! TOO MUCH TIME being wasted on this absolute CR*P – get it finished – and the way I suggest will be the only proper way to address it. Think about it. Peers regulating peers. Not like the old days of “self regulation” – that didn’t work (thanks life companies!). I’m talking about consensus between experienced THINKING and REASONABLE advisers using the best minds in our industry – NOT damn academics but people who roll their sleeves up and get out there and help clients and have done for decades. [b]That’s[/b] the way to fix things!! Not inexperienced and psychologically removed academics TELLING advisers what is best for them. Geeeeez! C’mon – let’s get to it! I challenge any one of our thought-leaders to take this ball and run with it. But only if you think it is important . . .
I totally agree with all the comments. Saunders came from the FPA so why doesn’t he come out and say conclusively where his previous CFP practitioners will stand? Countless years of additional study, specialist courses and CPD over and above previous qualifications plus 35+ experience and they have the hide to tell us that we are not “fit” to practice!
The FPA and other bodies alike, have a lot to answer!
Sanders won’t say anything conclusive about CFPs because there are two very different types of CFPs. There are grandfathered CFPs who were gifted the designation with limited education, and there are real CFPs who were required to complete an undergraduate degree and 5 financial planning postgrad level subjects. One group clearly meets the FASEA legislation requirements. One does not.
But when Sanders was at the FPA, he along with Dante de Gori and everyone else in a position of influence there tried to pretend this distinction between CFPs doesn’t exist and sweep it under the carpet. With Sanders moving to FASEA he is in the difficult position of appearing hypocritical if he now speaks openly and honestly about the different types of CFPs and where they stand in relation to FASEA. Hence all the doublespeak about “designations” vs “qualifications”.
So if 10 years is a measure of relevance for a degree, by their flawed logic everyone should be doing rolling 10 year degrees. I mean if someone got their degree 8 years ago they are fine, but are they going to make them do another degree 2 years after that? If not why not? If they are going to tell me my Finance degree from more than 10 years ago is now outdated then surely they have to continue on with the logic. I have a B. Bus in Finance, been a Licensed adviser for 20 years non-stop, done a Dip FP and been a CFP since 2000. But suddenly I am not qualified and my knowledge is stale. I might add that the FPA and CFP designation has done nothing for me and is a complete waste of $$’s.
I’m a CFP. I got one when I was working for a major investment company. I filled out a form and that was that. Yes, it was that easy. Everyone over 50 in the industry knows this. But there is no way I’m doing a degree and if it’s not recognised now and I can’t do advice, then I’ll retire early. My staff will also have to leave as I can’t see them buying a business in this falling value market.
And if you do have to leave? Have you bothered to ask your staff whether they would like to buy you out? Oh no wait, jump to conclusions, throw a hissy fit, and just put others out of a job…well done!
What you should do, is possibly help others buy you out so you can get something from your business to put towards your retirement, instead of the to hell with this attitude that you and many like you are taking.
Looking after community, colleagues and customers is what should happen, that is why we are in this mess in the first place – because it doesn’t happen.
Paul, I agree with you except for the falling market value of books of business. A good risk book is more valuable now than ever due to grandfathered renewal stream AND of course the potential for any new business. With CPI a book of business is an increasing asset. Can’t go wrong buying one – as long as proper due diligence is employed.
Grandfathering is worth nothing. As soon as you make any change, anything, it drops, and will keep dropping as the LIF reforms take effect. I did M&A and wouldn’t pay more than an accountants book. (0.5-1.0x profits not revenue) these days with compliance and staff education/availability issues.
Spot on. you would be [b]insane[/b][u][/u] to pay anymore than 1 x profit in the current context. for those who have a BOLR option that’s your best bet. get out now while you can
Well, you’re both most definitely out of touch on this score as I know from personal experience of 3 recent pure-risk books that have sold for 2.7x, 3x and 3.5x renewal income – 2 right here in Sydney and one on the central coast. Pure risk books, with some small supers, are still worth platinum bars as they are not only appreciating asset but income producing from day 1 AND a source of referrals AND new business. Triple/quadruple win!
.
A close mate is looking to buy currently and is willing to pay up to 3.5x renewals to secure a good one. It would have to be in Sydney or close though. People are hanging on to them waiting to see the results of this education malaise. Whatever the outcome the books will remain one of the very best investments one could possibly buy – if you’re lucky enough to find one and THEN win the bidding war!
Before we even begin to look at upskilling Advisers we should have a deep.knowledge as to where Advisers may be failing to be as good an Adviser as they ought to be. Then we develop training to address the problem.
This should be what CPD training and Conferences should be all about.
If advisers are failing to be as competent as they should be then a degree may still only be a band-aid solution if it doesn’t address their real needs going forward.
I checked out Swinburne’s Bacelor of Business (Financial Planning) and the core subjects occupy only 2 years of a 3 year degree (and nothing startling about the content). The other 8 units are all electives so they have merely bodgied up a degree.
It is also intriguing that each of their 16 core units are the same length despite subjects with disparate content. This is standard for Universities, TAFEs and schools but it does not address training needs only institutional convenience.
As to an education never being a waste…well if one’s education is limited to that provided by an institution you are educationally impoverished.
This is sophistry from Dr Sanders. It is circular, bumbling reasoning, which unfortunately sound like weasel words.
[b]The FPA 100 Point Plan is logical. Bring it back.[/b]
Agree!
Have you actually seen/read the FPA’s 100 point plan? At 14 points out of 100 for CPD training most advisers will still need to do a graduate diploma of financial planning. I certainly think you are barking up the wrong tree if you are thinking the FPA will save you.
Yes, the FPA 100-point plan still requires tertiary level studies. I have no issue with that.
Does anyone here find it odd that the word count by the author here, actually exceeded the sentence on the value of ongoing CPD by the FPA in their submission?
Perhaps someone should tell the FPA, because they feel ongoing education is worth 14 points out of 100 towards a degree and also nothing more than just a throw away sentence in a FASEA proposal. No wonder broad finance degrees are considered worthless.
Sorry Dean but my prior learning, although making me wise will be useless as I will not be qualified unless I go back to complete a new degree as it appears at the moment. I suppose I can sit at nights and look at the pieces of paper on my wall to get that warm feeling….similar to the one that you get when you have diarrhoea in a wetsuit.
Regarding “no education is a waste”, I agree, but my 12 years of subsequent mandatory FPA membership as a CFP has been!
The education provider who captures the most $$$ from the new requirements for senior and experienced planners like me and others who will need to tick this stupid box is any provider who will not make it overly academic and provide an option to skip straight to the exam and have it primarily exam based and not assignment based. Most of us wont learn much if anything about financial planning, but will learn a lot about how to learn in a modern internet/online era of learning!
It is clear the Minister is asleep at the wheel to allow this debate to continue. Dr Sanders is in way over his head and is sinking fast. The Minister is the only person who can definitively state the situation as the rest appears to be waffle and conjecture. No professional body seems to have a grasp of what they stand for in this debate as we have seen flip flop. Qualifications are one thing that could be and should be there from now on for all new entrants. It is simply a case that a National Exam be completed and then require CPD from then on. Those that fail, do a degree. This is not the same as grandfathering as the exam proves knowledge. A bar set at a sensible level. Fail and you are either out or need further education on the parts that you failed only. we don’t need the Mack truck to slam all advisers only a tweak of the current system. Of course, that would mean the cronies would miss out on profits as all of the degree courses being mostly empty. Again, lobby the Minister by sending your issues and ideas by registered mail requiring signature upon receipt. emphasise votes are on the line. Do the same with your Federal MP. We all vote and they are only there as a result of our votes. In the days of tight elections, you and I matter to them.
I am a CFP with a Masters in Financial Planning from Griffith University (from 2004) and have been in the industry since that time. So, with that qualification and 14 years of ongoing professional development there is still a chance I could be required to do more study to stay in the industry. Crazy.
Cut and paste this onto a letter and write to your MP. I also concur 110% with comments requiring letters be sent to MP’s. We need to bomb bard them to show them the insanity of this legislation. We have become an easy target over the years. We’ve been used as a scapegoat by CBA etc it should stop. What is the value of getting a Masters in Financial Planning in 2018 if the media and FASEA are out there perpetuating the myth of us all being uneducated.
Whats worse is few of these Ministers have formal education in/on the portfolio’s, and I would go so far as to say none have a degree in Political Science. Surely if you want to set things straight you start at the top? People in glass houses. Wishful thinking wanting the world to be fair! Ill get back in my box now, and wait to be kicked around again…
I’m not trying to be arrogant here but I’ve also been told that my Maters Degree in Applied Mathematics and Bachelors Degree again in both Pure and Applied Mathematics from Sydney University along with my FChFP designation and being a planner since 2001, doesn’t or may not satisfy the new regulations – what a joke. I’d like to see all those responsible for these decision to complete a Masters Degree in Maths from Sydney Uni and then let’s talk about regulations and what constitutes planner education requirements.
Deen and Dante are right. A designation is not a qualification. In most professions a designation is [b]more[/b][i][/i] than a qualification. A high standard qualification is a [b]minimum entry point[/b][i][/i] to gain that designation. In most professions it is a given that anyone with a professional designation has already achieved a high standard of qualifications.
But not for financial planning. Because of the grandfathered CFPs rort, not everyone with that designation has a high level of qualifications. While most CFPs have completed a degree plus additional postgrad level studies, some grandfathered CFPs have never even completed a degree. Hence all this dancing around the subject by Deen and Dante.
The CFP logo means you belong to an association that gets most of it’s money from the likes of AMP/CBA. With the CBA fiasco and a 10% discount , the membership of the FPA is now dominated by AMP and CBA advisers. I don’t have anything against CBA/bank advisers, it’s just high risk and very dangerous during a Royal commission. I’m ashamed to use it. I’d stop using it before your clients put 2 & 2 together. CFP now means ZIP. I think you should get over the whole grandfathererd CFP rort. I’ve removed mine from all marketing materials.
[b]GO IMMEDIATELY TO YOU FEDERAL MP and be very loud and clear that FASEA and ODwyer need to change !!!![/b]
The more weasel words these FASEA and Academics spin the worse it looks for any sanity.
If the Principle is, Qualifications older than 10years do not comply does this apply to other professions. Doctors and Lawyers who have been practising for 20/30/40 years need to go back and do another Degree because things have changed dramatically in their profession over the years?
If Sanders actually said the 10-year rule ‘is not a FASEA policy’ then this has now descended into a complete and utter farce. I have the document in front of me. The ten year rule is clearly there in black and white on page 5, point B 1. I hope IFA takes Sanders to task on this.
Correct. Here is a link to the document. Sanders has totally lost the plot
https://fasea.gov.au/latest-announcement
So what is he a doctor in???
I hope he didn’t get that qualification more than 10 years ago. If so they should take it off him as it’s stale.
At the SMSF assn conference I think he said it was in Psychology, and it was a very long time ago, and if he wanted to practice again he would have to go back and restudy.
Therefore on his own admission he should not be entitled to use the Dr designation anymore and he should drop it.
“…a designation is not a qualification”, yet the FPA website still says the CFP designation is the highest recognised financial planning qualification. Well i’m still confused.
I started as a trainee accountant in 1993, finished my Bcom on 1996 become a CA in 1998 became a member of the FPA 1999, completed the Graduate Certifcate of FP in 2003/2004, did the accreditation as a SMSF specialist adviser in 2004 and have been an authorised rep since 2005, yet you are telling me that because I didn’t do a qualification at what are fundamentally “two bit” universities” that didn’t exist at the time, I need to go back to uni to learn from a uni lecturer who has never worked outside of academia to tell me I am now qualified to do what I have done all my professional career when this whole time I have been fundamentally over qualified for what I do! Explain this please Mr sorry Dr Sanders.
well said – a mob of disconnected from reality muppets that are into soft science/ humanites.
I have been an adviser for 30 years, dropped my membership to the FPA in the early 2000s. I don’t agree with anything that I have to study for, that I cant use, if I don’t pay a yearly fee to someone to use. I will never be a CFP and that has never bothered me or my clients. The new regs will make more people think like me I’m sure
Just out of interest – does you P.I insurance not require you to be a member of a registered body?