Late last month, financial advisers Pamela Anderson, Halle Yilmaz and Philippa Hunt wrote to deputy opposition leader and shadow minister for women Tanya Plibersek expressing their frustration with the looming FASEA education requirements.
“In our view, FASEA is the most threatening and unreasonable piece of legislation the industry has ever experienced. It is deeply unpopular with over 95 per cent of the industry’s 24,000 advisers and, according to CoreData research, more disruptive than the royal commission, mainly because FASEA’s processes are opaque,” the letter stated.
The advisers included a submission that was also sent to FASEA in June, titled ‘Unintended Effects of FASEA on the Financial Planning Industry and Women’.
“Women will be disproportionately affected. Twenty-five thousand staff employed by 10,000 advisers will likely be made redundant,” it said.
“Women clients will not be able to access the increasing cost of financial advice as they earn less and have less super, which is not affordable to provide advice with increasing level of costs with compliance and increasing adviser educations costs.
“There are approximately 24,000 advisers in the industry, many solo operators or have two-three in the business on average. Only 20 per cent are women and this has not changed in the past 20 years. Each adviser has on average 200-250 clients that they manage. Most businesses and employ 2.5 support staff, mostly women.”
The three advisers informed Ms Plibersek that under the FASEA regime “existing degrees including relevant ones are ignored”.
“We all know there are certain knowledge and skill set that can be transferred from one industry to another easily and effectively. Besides that, FASEA has an overlapping education requirement. All the advisers are required to take a national wide exam on certain subjects. Afterward those who have passed the exams required to take courses on the exam subjects again,” the letter stated.
“We feel we are being unfairly bullied by some politicians and their allies wanting financial advisers out of the industry and certain universities salivating over many thousands of advisers paying fees for unnecessary education.
“Advisers who are five years out from retirement will be forced to retire early. We feel there is a discrimination against women, old and relevant degree holding advisers.”
The three advisers aren’t alone in lobbying the ALP over FASEA.
Industry association the AIOFP has aligned with the left-wing Financial Sector Union (FSU), which has formed a new ‘financial advisers’ category. The AIOFP will manage a committee that formulates industry policy for the national executive of the FSU. This committee will then forward their recommendations onto the ALP policy committee.
“To commence this process, we met recently with opposition leader Tanya Plibersek about the gender discrimination aspects of FASEA, which were well received,” AIOFP executive director Peter Johnston said.
Former NSW premier Nathan Rees is the national assistant secretary of the FSU. He has written to Parliament and alerted MPs to what he calls “a range of unintended consequences on financial advisers and the broader Australian community” of the FASEA proposals.
“We are concerned that the proposal directly discriminates against the 20 per cent of current financial advisers, who are women,” Mr Rees said.
“The business of providing independent financial planning is attractive to women who want to balance their work and family commitments, particularly those who want to run their own business. At the moment, we estimate that around 20 per cent of advisers are women, many of whom are sole parents. The proposed requirements have a disproportionately negative impact on these women and their families.”
Mr Rees said the FSU is concerned that for planners who work part-time, predominately women, and work flexible hours, they will not be able to complete the required study part-time within the time frame that FASEA is proposing.
“FASEA has not considered the gendered nature of the proposed changes and should they go ahead there may be grounds to file a case in the anti-discrimination commission,” he said.
“In an industry that already has the highest gender pay gap (31.9 per cent in 2017 according to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency), we need policy solutions that support the ongoing participation of women, not proposals that will see opportunities for women dry up due [to] barriers introduced by regulators.”
FASEA, like the TPB, is doing its absolute best to create for itself a permanent and extended operational and supervisory role, despite the multiplication and overlap of Regulators. This is basic bureaucratic and organisational behaviour, and is typical of the bloated, over regulated, vastly intrusive, costly, and excessive QANGO and semi Government regulatory landscape in Australia
In addition, these “Authorities” and “Commissions” are designed as “Revenue Gathering Institutions” [RGI], where previously they were funded by taxation and Government budgets, today, they are “Self Funding”, positive revenue contributors to Consolidated Revenue, based on the flaccid and irrational excuse that they should be funded by “Those who require regulation”, as if the entire economy and society itself doesn’t benefit from a stable, organised, generally law abiding market segment.
Essentially Scott Morrison [and other politicians] have made a repetitive methodology of shifting costs out of the Budget on to private shoulders – taxation by stealth, and abusing a specific portion of society.
Not to mention the impact on Regional Australians.
To save money the Government needs to close down all the Universities teaching medicine, and just relocate them all to say Darwin. Think of all those experts in Darwin teaching new Doctors and the benefits of having like minded minds under the one roof.
It’s the same concept. When you make the only solution to be a “Bachelor of Financial Planning” and you’ve less then a handful of regional Universities that have the finances to offer specialised degrees you’re going to have problems in regional and non metropolitan areas.
I speak as someone who has completed the educational requirements – despite having knowledge already that far exceeds any requirement that will ever be instituted in this field – so I am in a position to say – get over it. The premise of this article is absolute rubbish. I know a lot of women and they are all powerful and get what they want. The rest of you – male and female and anything else – this is an opportunity that will not be repeated in a long time – get in there and take advantage!
Pffft! The regulators always fix yesterday’s problems, the enterpreneurs fix tomorrow’s.
Within the next 5 years (2023-2024), all of the following are most likely;
– A Labor Government
– A serious market correction
– End of grandfathering
– Royal Commission finalises decisions
– The licensee landscape will be transformed
– The eldest millennials will be in their 40’s.
– Open banking and AI will change the user and service experience
– Rise of Blockchain will change the ‘meaning’ of money
In amongst all that both you and FASEA are saying I should spend $15,000 on completing study on things I already know. That is a serious opportunity cost which may be almost as good as flushing my money down the gurgler! For the record I have ADFP/CFP and a non-financial Masters degree from a sandstone university.
[b]Pffftt!!!![/b]
Sorry but your education is already out of date and obsolete. I can guarantee your studies have not covered off the issues raised in the Royal Commission and probably don’t even cover off FDS and optin. So it’s old… I”m sorry but back to school for you too. The Benchmark is now a Bachelor of Applied Financial Advice Sciences from my Uni.
Your comment Mr Cash Cow is pure click bait.
Out of date? My CFP certification is post opt-in/FDS, and until 12 months ago it was requested by nearly all CBD-based employers. Admittedly not the case now.
What will be out of date is the course you are promoting, within 5 years.
No issue with further education. Just that your/ FASEA’s prescription does not solve what’s up ahead.
So if you think my course is going to be out of date, why then are we insisting advisers with existing Finance related degrees go back to study?
Did your CFP course cover issues coming from the Royal Commission. No. it didn’t. So it’s out of date. How out of date is your CFP course going to be come 2024? I suggest you enroll in my Bachelor of Advisory Science ASAP, pay me money, buy my text books. I’m hoping to get a Lecture theater named after me. The CashCow Wing (sounds good) is named after myself Professor Cash Cow, who worked so hard to get more students (such as experienced advisers like you with obsolete degrees and useless courses from private firms like CFP) involved at Uni. I say goodbye and Cha ching.
Yes, it’s so absurd, probably time to have a laugh (sigh)
over 30 years of adviser experience and near 57 years of age, its now past my interest and compromises my ethics in a business where i no longer can value trust, or provide and serve all those who needs assistance at a difficult time and cant pay.
I also do not see value in the effort and costs of our new compliance requirements to be reflective to the client. I dont want to Bu!!5hit to them. The ladder now has to be placed against the wrong wall to be a success and that isnt something i would be proud of in years to come.
Its blown the fuse and the lights will be turned out soon for many of us.
Australians will sadly be the losers in this near era where advise will be out of reach of most. Where tech cant keep up with our needs and where we cant know if we are currently compliant when we are fed so much change and our sources are also contradicting each other. I have never set out to be perfect and none of us can be.
The new adviser I am sure will be damn great at tech and possibly wont be able to look at the client? But what real life skills will he have apart from what he reads and studies?
Searching for the charities to volunteer for so as to still retain real value in the community.
For that matter, it could be argued that it discriminates against single fathers also, no?
Why aren’t the AFA/FPA running these arguments ?
They are practicing to become regulators which of course involves the necessity of being asleep at the wheel… 😉
they are too busy attending christmas parties. they don’t do that stuff. they are there to hand out trophies and celebrate “success”
busy at a golf “pd” day
Have you not seen the FPA Financials? They work for the banks not advisers.
I would be interested to know how the conclusion that most of the 20% of female advisers are sole parents came from………lets have well thought out discussion.
“…we estimate that around 20 per cent of advisers are women, MANY of whom are sole parents….”.
I would be interested to know how you misread the article, and transposed the wording into something incorrect and unintended.
BTW, MANY of the female advisers I personally have met ARE single parents, because aside from the ease of divorce today, the personality, character, knowledge, intelligence, competence, discipline, and ego required to be self employed AND be privy to the incredible amount of medical, personal, familial, and business detail of at least dozens, possibly hundreds of clients; AND have the strength of character and ego to tell people how to organise their lives financially [and often generally] is often not conducive to maintaining the compromises involved and required in a relationship.
To summarise your lengthy comment; Hard working, bright, capable and empathetic women are statistically not good at maintaining partner relationships? Well that’s new material. Good work.
This is actually a very reasonable argument. Given the high prevalence of woman in support roles, there will be a disproportionate (negative) impact on women as the older males head for the door as it’s been made “all too hard” by FASEA. And I agree it will discriminate against female planners with existing family commitments. Given that the recommended study required to support each postgraduate subject is 15hrs per week, where are the mums (and dads) going to find the time? Do they tell the kids they can’t do sport for the next 4 years? Do the parents become even more sleep deprived? Do they tell their clients their level of service will decrease? ‘Gender’ seems to be front of mind in almost any public debate these days, so why not in the FASEA context?
Sleep deprivation is how I have handled the study. Will often do 2 or 3 hours starting around 9:30 after the child and husband have gone to bed. Would much rather have the weekend available to spend with my family than have my nose in a book.
Can totally relate. As a male adviser, have been there doing those midnight hours for my CFP certification with 2 kids under 5 (at the time). Now those hours (and that money) has gone to waste….Resentment factor – reasonably high!!
Agree with your comments re CFP. Its odd that the Certified Finance Planner only counts as 2 subjects credit towards a Graduate Diploma of Financial Planning according to the Assistant Treasurer Stuart Roberts. Yet Deakin University in the FPA submission to FASEA argued that its equivalent to 4 subjects in their Graduate Diploma of Financial Planning.
I find the argument in the article about redundancies for support staff flawed. FASEA are raising the education standards for Financial Planners. FASEA have not as far as I aware considered what the education standards for Client Service Officers, Paraplanners should be.
Are you $&^*# serious? Did you even read the comments? How do support staff of up to 75% of the practices that might close find work with a financial planning practice you numpty?
I’ll re-quote it for you: “Women will be disproportionately affected. Twenty-five thousand staff employed by 10,000 advisers will likely be made redundant,” it said.
Well, speaking as a consumer, I insist that people who offer services to the general public be properly qualified. Yes, the rules are changing; however, the planners who are affected offer life changing advice to the general public.
Only qualified people are allowed to practice as doctors and lawyers. The same must apply to advisors who offer these vital services. There’s been so much misbehaviour and poor performance across the industry that the time has come for proper regulation including an insistence on minimum educational standards.
Glen, we are all consumers! You can insist as much as you want, however your comment points to the fact that you don’t even have an adviser, so why bother commenting on this site unless you are a plant? Go back to work
There are are at least two logical fallacies in your response. The first is [i]false equivalence.[/i] You’re arguing that, before I can criticise the industry, I have to have an adviser. The second is the [i]ad hominen[/i] fallacy – attack the person and not the argument (I must be a plant and I’m improperly taking time off work)
You seem to embody all the negatives about your industry. I hope that you apply better logic in advising your clients. Your industry is on the nose and your attitude isn’t going to help the situation..
Perhaps you just a need a dose of reality. Your industry is on the nose – badly on the nose – and the your arrogent response simply confirms that the perception is correct. Your industry has let the Australian public down.
Glen, you are full of your own hot air. There are horror stories across many industries if one is willing to look. The medical industry alone (e.g. with class actions against intra-uterine devices as thousands of women are affected by life disabling injuries, or the bullying that is driving young doctors to suicide). Where is the Royal Commission there? Are all gynaecologists being asked to do more study? Or does this fall into your high-falutin category of [i]false equivalence[/i]?
Many of us have higher level qualifications but they are being ignored by FASEA.
Most of us have no issue with higher standards. But this has become quite political and clearly our professional associations are not up to the task.
Glen, business is booming at the moment, we are getting new clients every day. Get out of your ivory tower , off the internet, and actually speak to people. You are in a bubble if you think the whole industry is on the nose. The banks yes, but the rest of us, no, we are actually in the most good people that do good things for others. We service happy clients every single day, and we don’t really give a rats what you think or say. It dosen’t make any difference what you think, it just makes you feel good for 5 minutes that you can slag off a whole industry behind your little keyboard with no worries of actually being identified. We are your friends, neighbours and family, not just some faceless people asking to be attacked.
No one is arguing against that Glen. Did you see the part where they referenced “existing degrees including relevant ones are ignored”… That is much of the issue at play here. I know an adviser with an ‘irrelevant’ PHD (and every FP ticket under the sun) who has been in the business for over 30 years and will retire and take all of his knowledge and very importantly his pro-bono work for people in dire circumstances with him. There is little consideration of this.
I completely agree that it is women who will be disadvantaged by this. A former adviser, I now work in B2b services for the industry and the very large majority of support staff we see are women. I know of 5 books now for sale from transitioning advisers out of the industry – all with female support staff. It’s a shame to think that these highly skilled women with great corporate memory, client experience and knowledge may have to fight it our for a smaller pool of jobs. They don’t want to be advisers, and never have, but they will be impacted greatly.
Not to mention that the clients have built up years of trust with the advisers and support staff…now as the clients retire they have to trust someone completely new who whilst having the necessary education or support skills may not have the personality to work effectively with the client. Clients getting the raw end of this once again…just like every bit of unintended consequences with just about every bit of ill-thought-out legislation.
I think “Glen” may have missed that in his rush to post on another 10-20 sites today to meet the KPIs of his IFA employers.
The real reason “Glen” is upset is he wasted all that time doing a journalism degree and the only job he could get is writing fake comments for the unions.
Glen, I agree with you. I also believe that a Bachelor of Business (majoring in accounting), a Master of Commerce and three financial planning qualifications (Diploma, Advanced Diploma and an SMSF qualification of some sort – its under a Masters so I don’t care) should not count as the equivalent of a junior school certificate. The original requirement was a degree, which then became a degree equivalent which is now a related degree. Just another example of a government department taking something and completely stuffing it up.
FASEA’s draft also discriminates against those of us who chose to complete degrees in financial planning before it became compulsory. In my case I have a masters degree which cost me tens of thousands of dollars and huge amounts of family time. But according to the latest draft, I will be forced to lock myself in a room for hundreds of hours and pay several thousand dollars to repeat 3 more subjects at masters level. We are being treated like criminals. It is disgusting. They have had 18 months and they have failed dismally. It is time for the minister to intervene.
Could not agree more. In my case as a migrant to Aus 12 years ago, I have had to re-qualify as none of my SA financial planning quals counted. My CFP was deemed useless (and apparently so too will the Aussie CFP, my master also useless – start over. My B.Com was considered fine. But all these years of study when my kids where only toddlers. I missed those years. Then in Aus, get the Diploma, get the advanced, do the FCH(FP) the SMSF accreditation, redo the masters, now start over as it ALL not recognised. My son finishes year 12 now – and I’ve practically missed him growing up as my face has been buried in books trying to provide a living for my family. Now I must start again and miss the remainder of my daughters teenage years. I’d rather pull the plug on this career.
Is it possible these comments are removed. They make too much sense, and it’s not good for my business..at all.
All these advisers with Masters Degree, Commerce Degrees, Financial Planning courses with years of education from private institutions need to have a good hard look at themselves and how selfish they are. Just how will I get my promotion and that Lecture wing named after me if you guys with existing Degrees keep moaning about lifting education standards. Just have a think about academics like me. Those compulsory set text books just don’t sell themselves you know. How will I get my academic promotion to Doctorate level if I’m only teaching a couple of students. If you’re not committed to lifting education then… get out. Wingers the lot of you.
As for your comments about studying taking you away from spending time with your Son, I suggest you both enroll and study together. Buy two of my text books and I will give you 10% off.
That would be a great idea Prof Cash Cow except for this point …what loving parent would subject their child to this industry BS…? Sadly I DO NOT want my son to follow in my footsteps in terms of this career.
Can someone explain to me clearly please why a common standard, which is to apply to all, “will disproportionately impact women” as this is not explained in the article.
The maths appears to be simple, confused.
2.5 females average per practice will be unemployed for each adviser that shuts shop. In my case it will be 4 staff looking for employment if I shut shop.
..and a greater number of men will be unemployed from other “shop” closures. This still does not explain why FASEA is discriminatory.
‘Hi Confused’. In the majority of families, the female has the ‘primary carer’ role. So if a mum now has to do 15hrs of study each week for the next 4 years, where is she going to get the time from? This also applies to ‘dads’, but likely less so. Further, the majority of financial planning businesses are small businesses, employing 2-3 staff. So if the business owner packs up shop because the FASEA standards have brought forward his retirement, given that the majority of support staff are women, more women than men will also be out of a job. This is not a ‘pro women’ response, but rather a general response as to how the FASEA standards will affect women in financial services. On another point, who is going to pay for the $16K it will cost to upgrade to the new standards?
So FASEA is discriminatory to working mothers in Financial Services as they have care responsibilities?
NO…they work part time as financial advisers or staff and hence dont have enough time to meet ALL their responsibilities both existing and new AND pay for the course out of their already reduced income…
James, great reporting but a clear reference to these 3 ladies all being part of the AIOFP delegation to Canberra, and Halle Yilmaz being an AIOFP director, would have added to the content.
Their personal time given up on this is reflective of their commitment on their own behalf and on behalf of others whose voices are being ignored. Both male and female colleagues. Thanks for the hard work to all those who made the time to make the real world consequences known in Canberra.
yep… another unintended consequence of people making laws without properly consulting with the industry.
FASEA is unfair and discriminates against so many people. It is poorly conceived and an easy option for politicians that will come back to bite them at election time. Perhaps we need a Self Employer Owners political party to stand up for our rights.Ii am sure they could do well as no-one is happy with the performance either Liberal (Corporations) or Labor (Unions). Self Employed are left to fend for themselves, let alone a self employed financial planner (male or female).