The associations have made recommendations to the government body outlining their concerns with the current proposed education standards, with both separately recommending the government body recognise post-graduate study, CPD and unrelated degrees more highly.
In its submission, the AFA said it accepts the need for increased education standards but that these need to be “reasonable and pragmatic”.
“We do not believe that the current position expressed by FASEA adequately recognises the valuable experience of existing advisers or the courses that they have undertaken during their careers, including both formal qualifications and ongoing CPD,” the AFA said.
“We also do not believe the FASEA proposals are consistent with the intent of the professional standards legislation. We are therefore arguing for a range of enhancements to the FASEA proposal for existing advisers.”
Similarly, the FPA said that it supports government’s intentions, but that FASEA needs to be wary not to “unnecessarily create restrictions on competition, restrict consumer choice, or raise prices for consumers”.
“Recognition of education with learning outcomes specific to the provision of financial advice aligns with the legislative permission for FASEA to consider recognised prior learning (RPL) and the key principle of providing consumers with confidence that all financial advisers have the appropriate and specific skills and knowledge needed to provide quality financial advice,” the FPA said.
“The FPA proposal will be less costly and resource intensive for FASEA, advisers and licensees to administer.”
At the end of the day FASEA and the government would want to make sure they are not opening a door for litigation against them. As for the FPA another example of puffing out the chest and nothing more. Members of the FPA should be demanding answers not just writing comments on articles.
FPA’s non recognition of broad finance degrees yet the recognition of their own in-house CFP studies just smacks of self interest. Thankfully FASEA will not listen to the FPA.
The CFP brand is dead. It’s reputation is in the bin. You don’t listen to an organization whose members lie to ASIC 22 times, charge dead people fees, are accused of bribery and charge fees for no advice. Who would listen to an organization who has product manufacturing members like these ? No one. Who would listen to an association whose members very much seem to be complicit and silent with this type of behaviour.
CFP education program has 100% relevance to financial planning. A ‘broad finance degree’ has 35% relevance to financial planning. Why would you expect them to be equal? Are you serious? Switched the brain off ahead of the weekend?
Read the comment you brain dead twit. CFP Education program is a privately run course, initially prepared by Deakin. Prior learning achieved through the Private Sector is very relevant and even more relevant than University education. The FPA and their Sam Henderson mates have said in their first FASEA proposal that prior learning such as the CFP program should only account for 14 points out of 100. So the FPA dosen’t know what going on and their approach is just self serving. Now read this carefully. The difference between a Bachelor of Commerce and a Bachelor of Financial Planning is just 4 subjects. 35% relevance get real buddy. With a stupid comment like that you must work for the FPA. Please re read the comment you ignorant goose.
I agree cfp is dead. and i don’t say that because of sour grapes but in all practicality, the course is useless for someone like me and many others who I hope will avoid for duplication
I have a masters in financial planning. I am exempt from all technical modules of the CFP (3 in total) and only need to do cfp 1 (ethics) and 5 but given I have to do an ethics course for FASEA why would I do the cfp 1 and then cfp 5, I have already done the equivalent of CFP 5 – only at an actual AQF Level 9 – not pretend AQF 9
therefore, all i need to do is a fasea approved ethics course and i will meet the educational requirements
why would anyone do the cfp now, it makes no sense
There are lot advisers out their that completed the CFP program. Only to find that they’ve been ripped off by the money grabbing organization called the FPA, that they thought was there for them. Now they are finding out the difference between a University education and Private Sector course. “You get what you pay for”. I didn’t say that someone closely linked to FASEA said that to me, when discussing the value of privately run courses like the CFP and public sector Uni education.
The underlying fact with all of the changes being proposed is that both sides of government are genuinely not concerned with affording consumers with better protection and outcomes. If they were, then they would be focusing on overhauling ASIC and providing them with greater funding and powers to effectively regulate and police the advice sector. If ASIC had done their job properly and penalties were harsher, we would not be here having this debate and wasting out valuable time commenting on these forums! Ethical behavior is not assured by whether or not somebody has a degree or not and this is reinforced by the fact that some of the planners behind poor client outcomes and unethical behavior were appropriately tertiary qualified already. This is also the case with many Doctors/Lawyers/Accountants that have acted unethically or negligently. Once again highly qualified, yet some still act unethically!!
As we have seen with the pointed questioning by the Royal Commission, their appears to be a hidden agenda with a pre-determined outcome at play, especially evidenced by the now apparent non appearance at the RC of the Industry Funds due to a lack of time remaining!. Whether this be labor trying to destroy the advice sector to boost union funds or Liberal trying to gain greater control of the super sector for their once proposed infrastructure bonds, questions need to be asked upon the real agenda/outcomes desired with all that has been proposed.
Tax grab…control of more money….wonder what property investment the government needs funding from the industry funds….
So does this actually distinguish between those who studied CFP and those who got it for nothing…?
If not you could see FASEA laughing them out the door…
Could see FASEA saying “we will accept those who have completed the CFP course ONLY if this gets issued as a qualification and they dont need to pay annual membership fees to retain it”…
That makes sense to me, the actual CFP course itself is at a good level.. The FPA just need to stop thinking about the $$ and more about the industry.
Isn’t Sam Henderson a CFP?
There’s plenty of FASEA bashing going on but no-one seems to have actually looked at the legislation that they are actually regulated by. the Act and the reading by the relevant Minister stated that ongoing CPD, industry designations, years of experience would not cut it in the new world of financial advice education. In the current environment if you think that there will be any relaxation of these requirements, then you are in dreamland. If anything, things will only get worse as ASIC have been exposed as an inept and ineffective regulator and if Labor win the next election, as it appears they will, they would love nothing more than to smash the financial advice industry and have all super monies managed by their mates at Union Super. But hey, no conflicts with Labor & Union reps dominating the boards of these funds….
the financial services sector is ruined and F****d…..!!
FPA just trying to protect the CFPs out there (including those that bought theirs in a cereal box) and desperate to ensure the CFP remains relevant (and protect the river of money). But in doing so they are happy to screw over every other adviser who has a related degree.
Yes I noticed that too, I’ve spent the past 6 years doing a Masters degree in Taxation to improve my skills, instead of the CFP. It contains a lot information that relates to financial planning, but under the proposal from the FPA I’d have to start again and CFP’s would get exemptions even though their study is only recognized while you’re a FPA member.
Well good on them, we studied ours not grandfathered and FPA needs to be applauded for recognising for the investment of time and effort by us.
However, agree that if CFP is not recognised, I will cease to me a member and look at another career as I am surely not going to be doing another degree to pander to some suit sitting in their ivory tower who thinks that more education will solve this industries problem.
All problems in this business stem from SALES & COMMISSIONS. Get rid of these, and most of the issues go away.
If you studied the CFP, then I agree that it deserves some recognition. But not at the expense of advisers who hold related degrees but no CFP, whom the FPA has thrown under a bus. But then, how do you deal with the ‘grandfathered’ CFPs? Do they deserve the same recognition? Of course not.
No, not all the problems in the advice sector stem from sales and commissions. They stem from a lack of effective oversight and regulation from ASIC, plus a number of bad eggs that all professions and industries have in them and no matter the education standards or regulation, will still continue to act in that manner. Sadly a common trait of human nature for some individuals. The new FASEA standards will come into effect, the less qualified advisers will upskill to degree level, yet I can almost guarantee that we will be having this argument again in the future about what needs to be done to fix something that cant be fixed and is always going to be an unfortunate bi-product of the financial services sector/system. The FASEA education proposal is like trying to fix a leaking boat…fix one leak and other will start somewhere else because the main source of the problem is misunderstood or being overlooked.
absolutely agree
FPA has to protect the CFP’s. It’s the only captive subscription they have. Don’t pay your dues, you’re no longer a CFP….simples!
I bet FPA didn’t disclose their massive conflicts of interest in their submission.
FASEA and Over Complicated ODwyer are completing destruction of the Advice industry, as if they were the Labor party and Union Industry Funds.
submissions from emerging associations, not yet a profession yet. Would FASEA listen to them. I doubt that full of conflict of interest.