According to FASEA’s Corporations (Work and Training Professional Year Standard) Determination 2018, a new adviser must complete and maintain a logbook of the hours spent on work activities and structured training during their professional year.
During the professional year, advisers must complete at least 1,500 hours of work activities as well as 100 hours of structured training activities conducted as a separate activity from work activities.
The adviser must also keep details of the work activities and structured training undertaken, including when they were undertaken.
In addition, the responsible licensee of the adviser must ensure that, before they have had any direct or indirect interaction with a retail client, the client is informed, in writing:
- that the person is undertaking supervised work and training; and
- of the name and contact details of the person’s supervisor.
In a submission to the draft professional year legislative instrument released in July, Deakin Business School associate professor Adrian Raftery said that, given the quantitative nature of the number of hours that need to be logged, a resource in the form of an electronic timesheet may need to be developed to accurately record/log the time that new advisers spend during the professional year.
“It is a concern of the Deakin Business School that logbooks are prepared on the last day of each quarter rather than progressively,” Mr Raftery said.
“To provide a level of assurance, it is suggested that weekly timesheets may need to be prepared and then signed off on a regular basis by supervisors.”
Further, Mr Raftery suggested it is “absolutely imperative” that logbooks are subsequently submitted, approved and/or regularly audited by the regulators (either ASIC or FASEA) as part of a registration process to becoming an adviser to ensure that this training of new entrants is adequate in a timely manner.
“The Deakin Business School would encourage that strong penalties are put in place against supervisors and licensees if there is found to be inadequate training and supervision during the PY of a provision relevant provider,” Mr Raftery said.
“The draft legislative instrument appears silent on the matter of such penalties or sanctions.”
I’m 60 and this is great news for me. It means I can continue to work for as long as I want and no young whippersnapper is going to come and take my job. What other industry looks after its elderly- apart from aged care??
Looks like FASEA has just solved the undersupply of good quality paraplaners!
So morons. This is the price paid for 20 years of birding the regulators. From the early 90’s degrees were being mooted. Yet the reality is, most advisers did joke qualifications and courses which they think were up to scratch but in the real world, they were a 4 week (at best) up lifted pD day.. Hows your Kaplan Smsf course rating ? 🙂 The tossers complaining now were getting pissed on fundy junkets while some of us were trying to make this into a true profession. having done a REAL undergrad degree with invigilated exams, all nighter assignments, slam and cram examinations and if we had to, can calculate alpha, beta, gamma, efficient frontiers and actually understand law and ethics, I personally don’t give a shit about your bleating… all your clients will be coming to us and we’ll actually look after them rather than simply whisking an asf out of their account for providing a phone number. BRING IT ON !
Your offensive and belligerent tone completely negates any form of point scoring in your post. There’s little need for a retail client to be trading options and honestly any monkey with a calculator can calculate alpha or beta.
Congratulations on doing a real undergrad exam, I am out, you can enjoy your red tape and sky high insurance premiums.
At least I have other skills I can use to make money.
I don’t think an adviser that misses the key skill of “empathy” is going to be successful at all. You do know that it’s up to the Higher Education Provider (HEP) to put forward your Education qualifications to FASEA? My HEP has already indicated they won’t be putting forward my Degree and Post Graduate qualifications in Finance with electives in super, tax, retirement planning, insurance as I did not select the “Financial Plan construction” subject.
Who would want to be a new adviser now?
Is it not a concern to anyone that Mr. Raftery indicates “It is a concern of the Deakin Business School that logbooks are prepared on the last day of each quarter rather than progressively”… Hold on a minute Mr. Raferty. FASEA is considered a unbiased entity, oh wait… is this not considered a conflict of interest. Where are your ethics?
hahaha.. sorry just picking myself up from the floor… are these people for real!? Just goes to show how these people have got no idea.. so do we assume that as soon as you tick over from 1599 to 1600 hours that you will be a high quality planner.. get real FAESA.. stop adding costs to the industry.. and Merry Christmas (not too much punch though.. you might come up with another stupid idea)
Only one?
This is insanity!
Before the provisional advisor has had any direct or indirect interaction with a retail client, the client is informed, that the person is undertaking supervised work and training; and of the name and contact details of the person’s supervisor.
When would this be done in any other industry?? The client will have no confidence in the provisional advisor and this basically makes their provisional year a write off. That is, if anyone decides to take on the burden of hiring a provisional advisor!
At the cost of compliance, PI, software, etc….why pay $30,000 plus for someone who is going to take up consulting hours and still not be able to cover their costs….seems the supervisor will be doing the work anyway so this is merely a double cost exercise.
This whole FASEA project has been handled by bureaucratic academics who have never and could never function in the real business world.
They really have no concept of how we actually look after clients. Everything they have come up with on uses up more of our valuable time which would normally be spent looking after clients.
It would appear that the usual bureaucratic approach to problem solving has been applied here.
1. Determine what outcome we want.
2. Put the already decided upon proposals out for feed back with very short time frames.
3. Announce what is going to happen even though that had been put in stone before being put out for comment.
4. This to me sounds like the communist approach to governing as is practiced by the Andrews Govt in Victoria.
This is a complete farce.
Laurie Pennell, Victoria clearly voted for the Andrews Government because it delivers for its population. New schools, hospitals, TAFE, dentists for kids, level crossings, freeway upgrades, new trains.
Victoria is a progressive state because its people has progressive values. This is about equality, equity, doing the right thing. Sure, Andrews govt is not perfect, but the alternative is the party of Conservatives that has:
1) Impregnated a staffer while in wedlock, ended a good “Christian” marriage
2) Person who called on #1 to resign caught up in overseas sugarbaby scandal – calling himself James Bond and trying to “arrange” the company of a woman 20 years younger, meanwhile professing family values
3) Choppergate, hiring of a Chopper to fly the 100 or so odd KM from Airport to Geelong
4) Announced the end to the age of Entitlement meanwhile having several negatively geared properties in Canberra and “renting” from his partner instead – then after leaving politics scores a great job as Ambassador to the United States
5) Ended the manufacturing of cars here by daring the companies to F off instead of guiding them to change their offering to more palatable rates (Note: Since shutdown holden sales are struggling to be in Top 10)
6) Created fantasy “black african gangs” and campaigned on Law and Order, which Victorians were too smart to believe in
7) Rejected, and then agreed that there was a need for a Royal Commission into the Banking and Financial Services Sector
8) Demoted Kelly O’Dwyer, a previous NAB “Investment Banker” after letting her rip through the industry like a wrecking ball without fully comprehending how to fix the issue or even identify what the issue is.
9) You state that the Communist approach to Governings is done by the Andrew government but you can see the breakneck pace of reforms and changes being implemented by faceless bureaucrats
Conservative politics and people like you are what is holding this country back.
Maybe people would vote for a party that gave Australian’s a fair go but it is clear that working Australians, anyone who HAS to go to work to pay their bills, have been knifed by this Government and this government kind of deserves to reap the harvest they have sown in May.
well, that puts the nail in our coffin, we will not be able to provide that kind of supervision and will need to look to select only experienced planners. such a shame really 🙁
Welcome to the future with very few regulated financial advisers providing quality advice under a compliance heavy structure who are compelled to act in their clients’ best interests.
Welcome to the future of financial advice being given by ANYONE who can call themselves a Money Coach or any other name (other than Financial Adviser). These Money Coaches will do exactly the same job as financial advisers however will not be forced to have any qualifications, ongoing training, compliance, Best Interests duty or insurance. When something goes wrong and clients lose their savings, superannuation and house there is nothing they can do as the Money Coach is unregulated and has no insurance or governing body to complaun to.
Why would anyone waste their time with this training and huge compliance, plus the extra costs associated with being registered, when we can give exactly the same advice and charge the customer directly (as accountants/pay roll managers/hair dresses/ union officials have been doing for years).
40% of advisers will quit. 40% of advisers will become unregulated Money Coaches (or general advice “adviers”) and 20% of advisers will waste their time jumping through hoops only to realise that they are wasting their time and money giving advice when they could just change their job title and become Money Coaches.
End result. Proper regulated advice is way more expensive and available to HNW clients only. The majority of clients are forced to work out thier own financial situation or turn to the unregulated Money Coaches or General Advice sales people and when things go wrong they will join the dole queue.
I cannot understand how anyone thinks removing the protections offered by advisers and the compliance standards we have to adhear to is a good idea.
Do doctors, lawyers, accountants have to fill in log books during their professional year???
accountants do, for up to 3 years
“Dear Mr 65 year old retiree, your adviser is a rookie” .As an adviser who started when they were 24 years of age I can attest regardless of my extremely high educational qualifications it was challenging due to my youth. I started in a small advice firm and cut my teeth that way before joining a very large advice business. It seems going forward the breading grounds for new advisers will only be AMP and the four big banks and therefore this legislation is flawed and will have a serious impact on the succession plans of a lot of advisers.
This is one industry the new labour govt won’t fuck up once they gain office, it’s already done for them.
Never underestimate the capacity of a Labor Politician and/or the Labor Party [or any politician, for that matter!] to screw up policy even further their attempt “To impose ideology on biology”; to show that they are “Doing something” by ever further “Tweaking”, while chasing headlines and personal glory by misrepresenting, focusing on the trivial, irrelevant, and periphral. of course, they are ably aided by the 2nd and 3rd tier of ignorance, incompetence, and corruption in the public arena: the Public Disservice and SSM [sic] – the Sensationalist Seeking Media.
Merry Christmas FASEA! I’m sure you will all be patting yourselves on the back as you celebrate with the French Champagne over the office Christmas lunch, another productive year of wasting tax payers money, to simply deliver more uncertainty, anxiety and increased costs to advisers and in turn clients, whilst doing nothing that’s practical and workable to achieve better advice outcomes for Australians.
Over Bloody complicated O’Dier – what a train wreck she has caused.
But any idiot can stand for Parliament and get elected without any education or training and then they have the audacity to impose this on us.
Just like apprentices in other industries. except that pay scales are different. Imagine a Provisional financial adviser being paid around $25,000pa for a year. no recruits, I feel. Recording of training and time etc is not a big issue. What is the issue, is the quality of the education and supervision. What determines the competencies of the supervisor? Will there be minimum standards here? If that bar is too low, its a waste of time and possibly dangerous. if too high, no firm will step up to it.
The concept is fine. The reality might be a farce.
Yet another bureaucratic burden on advice practices and licensees. On it’s own, probably not too onerous. But given that financial planning practices are already drowning in regulation and bureaucracy, very few are likely to take on “L Plate” advisers.
Anyone thinking of starting a new career in financial planning now must be mad. Do accountancy instead. Easier to qualify. Easier to get a job. A fraction of the compliance and bureaucracy.
Financial Advice RIP 😥 = Death buy 1,000,000 cuts of over the top red tape regulation !!!!!!!!!
New regulation must only be introduced as an old piece is eliminated.
This ever increases bureaucracy is beyond belief.
These dickheads are joking aren’t they?
FASEA should be made to keep a log book of how much freaking time they have wasted – nearly 2 years and still going to results we still don’t have certainty on.
How much wasted time for FASEA and the whole industry having to fight back as they started with absurd positions like:
1) any degree over 10 years old will not count for anything.
2) past industry qualifications will not count for anything.
3) every adviser must do a full new degree. etc etc
What a complete waste of all our time this farcical process has been and continues to be.
[b]Show us your LOG BOOK FASEA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [/b]
and the jokes keep on coming.
This is just ridiculous. I wonder if any small to medium advice firms will want to take on “New Advisers” with the threat of severe penalties. I would have thought these firms would be doing the industry a favour rather than putting them under additional pressure of employment, supervision, education, super, workers comp, annual leave, sick leave, – Australian small business is just being smashed.
who has time to do all this and pay this person a wage?? Is this the standard amongst other professions? so you are paying a wage to someone that actually can not perform any duties and then paying someone to supervise?
yes the accountants are already doing this. 3 years of mentorship that requires keeping a log book
Yes But they don’t have the mountain of other red tape to deal with as well!
Its just outrageous!!!!
Are these incompetent idiots off their faces with some wacky, mine altering drugs?
This seems to be what CPA do when they mentor new accountants, not sure if it is a bad thing or not?
they seem to manage it ok so why cant we?
More absolute wank in a fucked industry
Wow. Craziness at its best.
what is that so concerning to the professor here. As professional accountants, we do timesheet every day. I suggest that timesheet should be done by all financial planners, not only for CPD purpose but also using it as a tool of monitoring how planners utilise their time.
Accountants do time sheets so the firm knows who to bill the time to! Nothing to do with development and training.
Yeah, great. Time based charging? An industry model that’s been superceded by value-based charging. Recording people’s time is less effective than recording people’s actions and the revenue that they bring into the business.
Accounting and Law use outdated “time” charging models and then scratch their heads when they aren’t used in every other profession.
I agree with TT on this one, particularly using timesheets as a monitoring/productivity device for practices (just good business sense). By contrast to the other changes going on within the FP industry (which are justifiably upsetting), this is actually nothing in the scheme of things.