In a statement released yesterday, the industry association flagged a number of concerns regarding FASEA put forward by members in response to an FPA questionnaire.
The questionnaire received “over 1,700 responses in the first 24 hours”, the statement said.
FPA chair Neil Kendall said members were not satisfied with the current proposals, noting degrees in law are recognised while some further studies in finance are not.
“Our members are outraged and in disbelief that FASEA can ignore the financial planning specific study done in the CFP program yet recognise a law degree as a relevant financial planning qualification,” Mr Kendall said.
“A financial planner with a business degree, eight subjects in the advanced diploma, and five master’s level subjects in the CFP program is treated as unqualified in the latest FASEA proposal, but an existing planner with a law degree only has to complete a non-technical bridging course to meet the standard.
“It is clear that the FASEA board have not been getting the right guidance on education standards.”
Further, the statement said the current proposals “seem to ignore that every single financial adviser in the country needs to pass an exam as well”, which should act as a fail-safe and prevent advisers with insufficient capacity from slipping through.
“There is broad acceptance that those without university degrees need to undertake further professional study, but those with degrees and further financial planning specific study are aghast at being told by FASEA they are essentially unqualified,” Mr Kendall added.
The FPA also welcomed the appointment of Mark Brimble as the interim managing director, following former FASEA chief executive Deen Sanders’ departure on Tuesday.
“We are optimistic that the appointment of Dr Brimble will provide a better opportunity for the profession to consult with FASEA. We thank Dr Deen Sanders for his contribution in establishing FASEA and wish him well in his new endeavours,” Mr Kendall said.
Mr Brimble, a professor of finance and financial planning at Griffith University, previously served as the chair of the FPA-established Financial Planning Education Council (FPEC) – an ‘independent’ body that accredited education courses for entry into the CFP program.
Mr Brimble stood down from the role as FPEC chair amid accusations of a conflict of interest after FASEA chose to adopt FPEC’s approved course list to form the basis of its own education pathways.
There are many people with ‘CFP’ status that have no degree because they got into it with ADFP’s and experience as prerequisites a while back. FASEA are only levelling the playing field and good for them for doing it, why should the FPA be different?
Very Disappointed in how bad the FPA has stuffed this up. The length of time it’s taken to actually hear from the FPA….in April…. just confirms my belief that the FPA is morally and ethically bankrupt. Who is driving that ship Mr Magoo. The article should be FPA members are outraged with the FPA. Very disappointing to have not heard nothing from the FPA for so very long. They are significantly out of tune with their members. Seems like it was only after CPA Australia came out and said FASEA is not quite there yet, that their has been any real traction on this.
It’s pretty clear that the root cause of the whole FASEA problem with CFP is FPA’s historical refusal to differentiate between grandfathered CFPs and those that have completed higher degree level education.
Former FPA Chair Matthew Rowe was a staunch defender of that flawed FPA policy of no differentiation. And now he is on the FASEA Board! FASEA should be recognising and rewarding that subset of CFPs who voluntarily completed higher level education, not perpetuating the deceit that “all CFPs are the same”. It’s time for Rowe to resign too.
Sounds like you’re saying that FASEA is incapable of recognizing candidates that have a piece of paper with 4/5 subjects completed recognizing that they’ve completed the CFP course from those that are awarded a CFP for helping establish a new association.
Not incapable. Unwilling. Which is worse because it implies personal bias and conflict of interest, rather than plain old incompetence.
I’ll 100% agree with you on that point. but clearly the FASEA bias is directed in favour of certain Universities qualifications such as distinct Financial Planning majors from certain specific institutions (Griffith) as opposed to privately run training organizations (like the CFP course) that offer specialized training. Therefore I can’t see how blaming cornflake advisers is the solution and advisers angst would be better off directed writing to the MP.
How about the FPA becoming an RTO again? is that the problem
Perhaps a law degree is relevant because Kelly O’Dwyer has a law degree and thinks it would qualify her for financial advice? What a joke FASEA and the FPA are and this whole farce that cannot recognise ongoing voluntary qualifications, professional development and experience. This industry basically only has 6 years left.
Couldn’t agree more. Whilst I’m wondering how the hell I can afford to retire in 6 years (at age 67 now there is no way I’;m going along with this bull s..t) these people responsible for throwing the industry out the window will get their pay and their perks uninterrupted. They are all just public servants at heart, achieving nothing, building nothing, just creating problems. That includes Kelly O’Dwyer
spot on… just makes you shake your head in disgust
Maybe you have seen a better planner….
IN response to accounting degrees, the accounting degree that I have from Canberra University contains corporations law,contract law,two units of finance ,economics ,stats anaylsis,investments,mathematics,computing studies and six units of accounting.I think there is allot of ill informed persons on the forum.Add in my CFP studies and CPD,I think I am qualified to give advice.
Mr Kendall appears not have read the material correctly, as someone with the qualifications that he has listed would both need to do further study of at least the proposed Ethics module and possibly another 2 modules at most, so 3 all up. Again I wonder how closely these people read what gets put out?? If this bloke is the head of the FPA, no wonder they’re in trouble.
The FPA in their course advertisement still today state: “As the Program is at a Post Graduate (Masters Degree) level, we recommend you spend a minimum of 10 hours per week studying””. The FPA ethics is now at an all time low, especially coming at a time when we need less Government regulation and intervention. The board and Management is essentially blinded. We’re in a middle of a Royal Commission and the FPA is out their getting payments from Banks and the like, stating on one hand to their members that their CFP course is equivalent to a Masters Degree and then on the other hand telling FASEA that it should account for 14 points out of 100. WTF? Then they set up a separate entity called FPEC and tell FASEA that only Financial Planning degrees on FPEC are valid whilst ignoring broad Finance degrees.
The FPA have reached an all time low. That’s what happens when you make a third of your income from CFP courses, a third from FPA seminars and the rest from banks via the professional partner program and finally members fees. The more they align themselves with Banks the more their credibility decreases in the eyes of FASEA and Treasury and therefore the more they need to get funding from activities that don’t represent planners or Australians.
So even a law degree holder has no ethics- needing the ethics course. I would love to see the compliance report of such a person without further study in FP. Ethics- CFP 1, TPB, CPA- nil recognised !!!!. The ambit put out by O’Dywer has been misunderstood- was it not new entrants must have a degree and current planners be trained to degree [b]equivalent.[/b][u][/u] To state accounting degrees or similar with DFP 1 – 8 and CFP certification are not worthy and a law degree without DFP- ADFP and CFP are worthy– someone is twisting the rules. The bridging subjects look like they have been plucked from a degree without due consideration to what is really required. Looks to me like a means of lifting income to universities. How can a more FP focused education be less than a law degree???????
Just because that’s what Mr Kendall has said doesnt mean that it’s true. With all your quals have you bothered to read the release from FASEA? How silly would people be to read and believe crap written on this website? And we poke fun at people who say “I read it on Facebook”…..
I wish to comment on those comments being made regarding those who completed the DipFP prior to 2003 as I am one of those. I satisfy the FASEA degree requirements as I hold a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the University of Melbourne with majors in Economics, Accounting, Tax Law and Commercial Law.
I completed what was at the time the DipFP six unit course offered by the FPA firstly via Deakin University, then RMIT. This was completed via correspondence over an 18 month period as I was running my own financial planning business full time and not just a student. There were a requirements to submit assignments and sit an exam for each unit to pass.
I take considerable offence for those who are saying I got this from the back of a cereal box. Have any of you actually looked at the course content? Are any of you actually financial planners?
I have been a full time planner for over 30 years and completed at least 35 hours of ongoing PD per year to maintain my knowledge to provide the best advice to clients.
I am actually the Compliance Director and Responsible Manager of an AFSL who has had their licence for over 18 years so I do know what I am talking about.
Stop criticising and preaching until you know what you are talking about.
Somebody is barking up the wrong tree here.
Most of the reference I see on this forum are to cereal box CFPs?! The pre-PS146 DipFp was undoubtedly an education course of value, as is the current CFP education course.
My hope, and I think its a reasonable one, is that these old courses are fairly assessed for RPL and credit is given where its due.
you won’t get RPL for courses undertaken more than 10 years. no uni in australia will give it.
if they did give RPL for courses >10 +, they wouldn’t be able to sell their new and improved course(s)
no money just giving RPL’s upon RPL’s for a small fee when you can charge full freight on new and improved course
Ditto. I regularly employ accounting graduates who tick the education box but cannot really be productive for a good 6 months learning what they have been accredited for in their degree. One who did not make the grade, was studying for masters. They could not address an envelope (took 6 goes to get one right). I brought the matter up at a day for the uni – the response from those who are going to charge a couple of grand a course – “why are you making masters students address envelopes?” a luta continua
i think you will be one of those who will need to do a full grad dip i.e. 8 subjects as your degree is too old although you might get RPL for your work experience
unfortunate, but seems to be the standard now
unfortunately for you and many others, you will need to redo a new fully compliant FASEA course (as you won’t be entitled to any RPL for prior study or work experience).
as a compliance director, of long standing, you will appreciate how important being compliant with the law is don’t you.
you can stay as the compliance director and responsible manager i’m sure.
but you are no longer qualified to give financial advice
best you leave that – giving advice – to those of us who are fully qualified with the [b]NEW Standards[/b]
FASEA is now a joke.
Start again properly, give it professional consideration and analysis and get it right this time….and be reasonable and fair to those existing advisers.
There are far too many dirty snouts in the trough of Financial Services and Education providers who are there for their own gain, notoriety and self promotion.
An old Chinese proverb is “The fish rots from the head”. What a sticking mess for the new CEO to sort out with alienated stakeholders!
CFP courses are not a ‘Masters level’ despite what the FPA may want to tell itself. The idea that RTO Diplomas and Advance Diplomas (should probably lump KAPLAN’s garbage ‘degrees’ in this pile aswell) would qualify anyone is laughable at best. A real bachelors standard is required to professionalise the industry.
Whilst a law degree has some relevance, a behavioural finance and ethics subject isn’t enough to bridge the gap and is about as relevant as an accounting degree…it’s going to remain detrimental to the public and leave me with more poor work to clean up. Financial planners should be doing genuine finance degrees that cover corporate, securities, and tax law as well as accounting basics and advanced economics, finance, and investment. Really FASEA has gone soft; i suppose however, the majority of advice is rather simple and making it too professional too soon would leave an unmanageable vacuum to the detriment of those that only needed such simple advice.
Garbage, CFP earns credits for a dozen Master degrees. The education component of the CFP program is recognised at a masters equivalent. Clearly you haven’t been through the education program since 2005. It is very challenging (and I have a law degree).
yes true, apparently the CPF coursework gets up to 4 (or 50%) exemption from Deakin Grad Dip (confirmed by Adrian raftery from deakin)
so not entirely true that it’s worth nothing, not as much as most think it is worth but something nonetheless, so not entirely useless,
at least at Deakin who ran the CPF course for the FPA think so
you might have to add a few finance courses on top of your CPF and law degree
but it’s all good you should be fine
its CFP
who cares what it is, nobody cares about that stupid, worthless designation, i’m glad i can’t even remember the order of it
Have you done the full CFP course (CFP units 1 to 5) Anonymous? I would be curious to know given your strong opinion here.
You may be correct on where the industry is going. But in reality you have some very competent people who have done engineering and science degrees who have come into the industry. With respect – many of these individuals are probably more qualified in that the degrees may have an element of being less easy to get into in the first place on ability. Most graduates enter the market having forgotten most of what they learned and needing to learn to put it into practice – I have employed many!!
Do you think it is fair that someone at the end of their career who has gone to the effort of doing CFP plus probably other specialisations that have been available (SSA,securities, law, tax etc. etc.) should spend the last years of their working life doing a degree.
What are the costs going to be for the industry??
Yes because all the genuine finance degrees held by bankers and economists have just worked out so well, haven’t they?
Don’t have an issue with the subjects you mentioned, but let’s not pretend what you propose is a cure-all. It’s not.
Mr Brimble would be unqualified to give advice on this subject based on the FASEA rules, so sorry Mr Brimble you are unemployed like the 15,000 other financial planners who are struggling to make ends meet with the rising costs of education compliance and dealergroup fees oh and did i mention the 50% cut in commission just to make it all tidy driving us into extinction, thankyou.
“We are optimistic that the appointment of Dr Brimble will provide a[b] better OPPORTUNITY for the profession to consult with FASEA. We thank Dr Deen Sanders for his contribution in establishing FASEA and wish him well in his new endeavours,” Mr Kendall said.”
In other words, Dr Deen Sanders stuffed up…………………….now its damage control time. LOL
CFP and the FPA are a farce. Hate to tell you all that are a member, but you have wasted valuable time, money and resources that could have been used to progress your business further
Yes agreed and I am a member! I would also say the same thing about the other accounting/financial planning bodies.
Many Adviser’s have CFP designation without completing any study at all & FPA have the audacity to market CFP status’logo as recognizing a truly ethical professional Adviser – it’s a joke!
So you believe what distinguishes an adviser that triple gears an 80 year old into timber plantations from a great client focused adviser is nothing more than doing 5 units from an organization that gets payments from Banks and sells out CFP students to promote FPEC? When I joined the FPA I thought it was committing to a code of ethics and standing apart from those who were happy to be compared to Carsalemens. How foolish have I been. I could have just done five subjects and been tripple gearing people for years. I think you need to get out more.
yes, the accounting associations are a laughing stock look at cpaa implosion, a case study for future MBA students about governance, lack of ethics and how not to blow up an organisation
only association that can outdo the FPA are the CPAA
nice observation. the stark uncanny similarities between the two, one is fully progressed to implosion (CPAA) the other one is well progressed on its way to imploding
The mishandling of the “consultation” period by Dr Sanders has cost value time . The FPA needs to request an extension to the period until a new appointment is made to steady FASEA and repair smouldering relationships with stakeholders.
The really old CFP qualification (pre-2003) and the Kellogs box in which is was delivered is the problem. FASEA, in its haste, is tarring all with the same brush.
Maybe. But you’d think all those educated people at FASEA would have known the difference. What’s more, someone can still do a 1 week Kaplan 4 unit course, become an ‘existing’ adviser by 31 December 2018 with NIL experience, and be treated the same as someone with 20 years’ experience. That, in my opinion, is more of a problem. After all, those with the ‘Kellogs’ CFP as you put it, have that experience.
Corn Flakes Practitioner
Says “Anon” who hasn’t done the course and wouldn’t pass it anyway.
maybe anon was smart and did a AQF rated masters in financial planning (fully fasea compliant ) and laughing at those who pursued the CPF
It could have been worse, you could have been so stupid and gone out and did 5 subjects to achieve the Commonwealth Financial Planning designation offered by an organization like the FPA whose business partners/ principle members have been accused of taking bribes at Royal Commissions. Who is the stupid one here… the Corn flake dude or you? You’d have 2/3 of a graduate diploma completed by now…crazy….and now you pay twice in memberships fees for the life lesson.
the only people dumber than those FPA members who did the CFP in the first place are those who knowingly still remain a member. the former were duped but the latter are most stupid.
Yep, the grandfathered CFP situation has long been the festering sore of the FPA which they have refused to get treated. FASEA is trying to impose a cure for them, by amputating the whole limb.
There are better ways to solve the grandfathered CFP problem than one which unfairly punishes those planners who voluntarily completed the Masters level CFP Course.
The FPA grandfathered existing advisers into the CFP program for fear they would lose them to the AFA. That short sighted decision why they attempted to “professionalise” the industry via a CFP with a degree pre-requisite was a mistake and short sighted. It’s come home to roost now.
The CFP is not “masters level”. Nice try though by the FPA to push it as such for so long.
it is amusing that the FPA discount a law degree – shows where their head is at!
Lawyers are perhaps best suited and very well qualified to work in our ridiculously over legislated industry! Also, the last time I checked, law was a pretty big area and isn’t there Corporations Law that has all that pesky legal stuff about financial advice?
Would you go to a lawyer for financial planning advice?
.. you would end up going in circles talking gobbly gook.. come to think of it.. most of our Politicians come from this industry which probably makes sense how all this has been stuffed up!
I’d rather go to a dentist first.
i’d go to a plumber first
will the law society of nsw let me practice law with a finance (hard quant) and mba (no1 ranked in aus). I reckon i could do a lot better than a 2nd year lawyer with my experience of 20 years
hint: it’s a rhetorical question
The CFP designation would be more meaningful as a genuine educational qualification if it weren’t for the grandfathered recipients. Perhaps a simple solution would be to require those that attained the qualification by cutting it from the back of the cereal box to do some kind of bridging course?
I’m sorry, but are you 14 years old? Grandfathering, including in Accounting & Law, has been an acceptable, pragmatic method of acknowledging a combination of education and practical experience for decades. The fact that you are so happy and willing to dismiss the achievements of good people with significant rungs on the board speaks to your lack of maturity. Grow up or go home.
Actually, you got given a gift, and you don’t deserve it in the present context. Simple. You are bringing down this industry. You, and you were enabled by the FPA.
Please form your own association and see how you go getting members. I’ll join. I turned up to FPA meetings for 3 years and it was me and Bob. A gift is when your employer pays your membership fees for you, like 90% of FPA members today who work for CBA and are forced to join. The CFP was given out to encourage people to create an organization that would distinguish, behave and act in a certain way. Why don’t you ask why the FPA said the CFP course is only worth 14 points out of 100?
…a little incoherent but I get your drift. Considering you know nothing about me or my practice, your shrill response is remarkably accusing and judgmental, but that’s ok – unshakeable certainty, and the inability to think calmly and laterally, comes with youth, inexperience and insecurity. You’re forgiven.
As a qualification, your Cereal Box CFP is worth nothing – which directly matches the amount of education you did to earn it.
Now that doesn’t mean your not an exceptionable financial planner, but it does mean that without another qualification at at least AQF7 level, you are not even close to meeting s921B(2).
FASEA was charged with implementing s921B – to raise the standards of the industry – to grandfather all the incumbents would effectively mean that this change would take an entire generation to complete which I think all but the most irreverent would think is way to slow.
MANY CFPs got their designation prior to the degree requirement, additionally the study required for the designation wasn’t at AQF8 or above – it was filling out a form mostly completed by a licensee who also happened to be a member (and occasionally board member) of the FPA (remember those days???). How can there be credibility in a designation if it was handed out by product manufacturers masquerading as a professional association? Remember this is as much about perception of advisers and this paints the same old conflicted picture.
Grandfathering skills is one thing (and this should be part of the guidelines) however a meaningless post nominal is not something that should be lauded. CFP holders that attained their designation recently should be angry that they are bucketed with those that were ‘given’ the certification.
Anon. There’s actually 3 groups of CFPs. The true cereal boxs, who needed nothing but a favorable reference to obtain it, a second group who did the 5 subjects post completing the old DipFP, and the quite recent recipients who also required an FPEC approved degree.
The CFP designation is definitely being degraded by the cereal box group, but that is a different argument to the FASEA one. Those who studied should/will get some level of RPL, those who didn’t, and, yes, that means you Mr Kellogs, will get what they deserve in this analysis of qualifications.. that is, nothing.
OK, I’ll be more specific, those that had their CFP presented to them by the FPA pre-2003 thanks to their membership (not study) should be required to do more – my father had one of these CFPs and he didn’t even finish high school, he did a life insurance dip at some point in the 90s – this doesn’t detract from his experience (which was second to none). The CFP in this instance wasn’t a measure of his experience or his skills. Whilst he wouldn’t like it he’d agree that some formal recognition of his skills are important – a bridging course, even a Grad Dip course?
The post 2003 CFP (whilst not a Masters) should clearly count for something (AQF7/8 who knows). It isn’t a degree though so critically the foundation learning that people do in their undergrad / dip / adv dip is missing. Would you go to someone for neurosurgery who hadn’t completed their MBBS but was lucky enough to be admitted to the College of Neurosurgeons because they used lots of drugs marketed by a sponsor of the College? I don’t think so and this doesn’t happen in that field as it is a profession.
An undergrad degree in financial planning, or an undergrad degree in another discipline plus a financial planning Advanced Diploma, are [b]prerequisites[/b] to even enrol in the CFP Course. Yet FASEA deems all this worthless. Time to clean out the whole FASEA Board O’Dwyer. They are too driven by personal politics and conflicts of interest, and have lost sight of the point of the legislation.