A host of new education requirements, set by the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) will be imposed on existing and new financial advisers by 2024.
Experienced and degree qualified financial advisers, including those with post-graduate qualifications and professional designations, are finding they don’t comply with conditions which allow access to traditional arrangements. In effect, some of those advisers will need to complete up to eight units of study to remain compliant.
Licensing for Accountants chief executive Kath Bowler believes these advisers “who are clearly quality advisers” are a symptom of an unstable regulatory environment since the 1980s.
“The financial planning space has just changed so rapidly – you may have don’t all the right things with diplomas and advanced study and training, but that’s not recognised under this new guidance,” Ms Bowler said.
“So there’s this crazy situation where you’ve got an experienced practice owner, who has all their specialisations, and they have to do all this extra study. But the graduate planner who has been out for a few months might only have to do one. You’ve got a mismatch.
“The message and intention of getting appropriately qualified advisers in the market is getting lost in all this.”
Separately, FASEA is currently seeking expressions of interest for the design of its adviser exam, which will be compulsory for all advisers regardless of their experience and qualifications. FASEA made the public appeal on Thursday, with a deadline of 15 June. This gives advisers eight calendar days and five full business days to make a submission. Advisers in Queensland and WA have six business days due to the public holiday calendar.
More solid gold stuff from FASEA.
Is it time to rule this whole exercise a mistake & disband it?
Go back to the drawing board?
This is akin to a workshop to find solutions when the solutions are predetermined by someone who thinks (is convinced) they know best.
The only people with time to write submissions to FASEA & the RC for that matter are those with an agenda backed completely by self-interest.
Practitioners who are busy trying to help the people that matter – clients – are getting swung around like a kite in a hurricane.
So when are the supposed associations that we are members of actually going to stand up and be heard on behalf of the industry ???? ohhhhhhh wait that’s right they have a vested interest in this stupidity that’s going on.
Serious question here, and i’d appreciate genuine replies from those who have completed the CFP recently. I am a new entrant to financial planning and have completed a masters in financial planning through Kaplan. I have found it very useful as it consolidated my knowledge and filled in lots of gaps and has given me a lot of confidence
my question is i am still going to have to do an ethics subject for FASEA. given that, what would be the point of doing the CFP, as i am exempt from 2,3,4, and am required to do a CFP 1 which is ethics, and also certification which includes a financial plan, and multi choice question. I have already done this through the masters so no point doing the CFP, does anybody agree disagree with my view?
thank you,
sorry multi choice exam
Hey fresher. Please send me a cheque. I’ll be quite happy to take your money and give you some type of “certificate” in what ever you want. Whether it’s of value depends. Myself, If I’m going to study, I’d rather study from a recognized training organization or a University, then hand over money to a private institution that carries practically/barely no credit for further education. The second issue is just how much is the CFP brand worth post the royal commission (RC). It’s now a mark of people who “haven’t” studied and that you’re fellow members are before a RC. Save your dollars.
No-one knows. We are operating in a policy & leadership vacuum. I’d suggest getting your CFP as it will assist with employability with any FPA Professional Practice. I wouldn’t bother if your only goal is to get through the education standards. They are a dogs breakfast that FASEA doesn’t even understand.
thank you for both responses. I believe I know my answer and that is that I have done enough study now, and to stay away from anything to do with the FPA
well said…especially in the evolving environment. Their is only one constant in this game and it will be the need to continually study.
if you have completed a masters degree already you don’t need to do the CFP, it’s redundant and your qualification is already approved and recognized by FASEA. Therefore, you have already done more than the CFP certification, so do not require it. like the other commentators below save your money
I am fully supportive of raising “equalising” education standards in Financial Services, but I remain confused about the EXAM. If all Advisers are required to meet an education standard of degree equivalent or higher by 2024 to be in practice, then have we not solved the equalisation of education standards across the industry? if so what purpose does the exam serve?
Initially I thought that the exam would be used for RPL purposes, in other words highly experienced Advisers could sit the exam, demonstrate their education and be absolved of the need to spend 2-4 years and $20-45K on degree equivalency. If this is not the case can someone please explain the purpose of the exam?
Once you add in your time cost at say $300 / hr x 120 hrs per course, the real cost of FASEA will be astronomical. Even the Ethics course will likely cost $6K to sign up then $36,000 in time costs.
O’Dwyer and her FASEA buddies should be made to go back to school before they impose crazy costs on those that are already well educated as advisers and well experienced.
Haha!! Yes FASEA, ask for input – considered and worthwhile input with such short notice AND make sure you do it in the busiest time of the year for a financial planner – the lead up to June 30th. These absolute CLOWNS should be abjectly ashamed of themselves. Even when they are asking for help (submissions) they can’t win a toss or do it right. This is disgraceful and embarrassing. . . most everything this collection of incapables has done has been disgraceful, mismatched, inefficient and mostly just inappropriate compared to what really needs doing. I’m honestly over this whole thing and so close to giving up and retiring it isn’t funny. Risk advisers must be examined differently as their craft is wholly discipline.
.
WHERE are the LIFE COMPANIES supporting their advisers to be held to different exams and accounts? Blind Freddy can see a risk adviser is a different skill and knowledge set to a normal full financial planner. WHY are the LIFE COMPANIES not making a noise and championing specific requirements and a regime for their advisers.
.
I am not Robinson Caruso and I can tell you that MANY risk advisers will leave – good advisers that clients and the life companies can ILL-AFFORD to lose. The life companies either have their head in the sand and are asleep at the wheel OR it is by design and they WANT to cull the advisers to more easily implement their precious RoboAdvice. that will, of course, be the end of them. C’mon life companies – which is it? I challenge you to [b]shape up[/b] and SUPPORT risk advisers. If you don’t you’ll have to [b]ship out [/b]as there will be zero business and zero advisers. Wake up FASEA and life companies.
We know your not Robinson Caruso the English/Italian pizza chef from Leichhardt, you might not even be Robinson Crusoe who may have spent a decade or three on a desert island, but like many of you who RANT IN CAPITAL, [b]OCCASIONALLY IN BOLD[/b], getting the basics right is extremely important. I will now stop arguing with myself. [b]OK[/b]
No question that FASEA guidance is disconnected from practical reality, community expectations and legislative intent. The question that now needs to be answered is whether this is due to bureaucratic incompetence or commercial conflict of interest. Either way FASEA needs to be disbanded and the whole process started again.
Just another example of regulator and government completely at odds with the industry. FASEA giving such short notice for a vital piece of the puzzle is pathetic. How on earth do they expect meaningful input? Ah yes, they already made the decision and exam content, this is just a sop to say they asked for input. No confidence in this whole process at all.