Beginning in the first semester this year, the Master of Financial Planning will be targeted at those already working in financial services who wish to up-skill and position themselves at the forefront of their industry.
Swinburne said students will also learn about the emerging technologies that will influence the future of the financial services industry.
Further, the postgraduate degree includes units on ethics and client management, with projects based around real-world case studies.
“In addition to people skills such as interpersonal communication, decision making and conflict management, this course provides students with the technical skills needed to provide tailored, professional financial advice whilst navigating complex financial matters and ever-changing industry regulations,” said Swinburne’s finance discipline leader Dr Reza Tajaddini.
“We don’t just teach students the industry code of ethics, rather we encourage students to consider and evaluate real ethical scenarios, preparing them for the range of situations they may need to respond to in practice.”
Dr Tajaddini said the demand for qualified financial planners would also continue to increase as a result of Australia’s ageing population.
“Financial planners are most often used by those approaching middle age who are looking to invest and plan for their futures and retirement,” he said.
“As a large portion of Australia’s population moves into this stage of life, we can expect the need for qualified financial planners will also grow.”
Still waiting for these institutions to actually apply the FASEA RPL Criteria….
The heading is misleading – this Swinburne degree is not approved. They might be seeking approval but it is not currently approved given the list issued in the past few weeks by FASEA. The same university rushed to press last year saying that they had FPEC approval for their diploma before they actually had it. We need to proceed with care.
As a Financial Advisor myself, i have to feel the bile rise in my throat as to how the universities will now be rubbing their hands with glee with this pot of gold just handed to them.
I am an academic, hold and MBA and currently finalising my PhD, and feel that our industry is sadly completely inept in its leadership, mentoring and guidance in these troubled times. It will get worse as ill educated politicians (and heads of organisations who control purse strings to ASIC) dictate how our industry will move forward.
This is exciting times for the education industry, but sad times for ours.
Is there a unit on how to defend yourself against ASIC against a lifetime ban for not giving out a FSG?
I’ll give you it for free. Don’t forget.
So that does sound like that if you’re currently studying a Masters of Financial Planning in 2018 then you’re not studying the right material?
I already have a Masters Degree in Financial Planning. I would strongly urge my fellow financial planners to do the bare minimum. ie. a grad dip or other bridging course. Don’t waste your time and money doing anything more, or else you might end up like many of us, who did the extra only to find an arrogant, inept and conflicted government body like FASEA comes along and tells you your course is not approved due to tricky conditions buried in the fine-print and in fact, your Masters degree IN FINANCIAL PLANNING does not even qualify as a ‘relevant degree’!!!! Don’t give away a single cent more than you need to and don’t waste your valuable time. Best of luck.
I feel 100% the same. Same qualifications. Went out and did additional study in financial planning and with FARSEA I feel so deflated. I was wanting to do extra study but I just feel I will do the minimum going forward. With FARSEA degrees and education has a used by date, and like we’ve seen the Government could just change the rules.
There is no way that your Masters in Financial Planning is not a ‘relevant degree’. It may not be ‘approved’ but the new clarification would almost certainly mean that its now ‘relevant’ as they’ve added financial planning to the scope
Really? Why are you so sure? Do you think I am making this up? If you want me to spell it out, here goes… My MASTERS DEGREE IN FINANCIAL PLANNING doesn’t meet the 8 subject definition. It was a standard masters, with the equivalent of 12 subjects. However, I received 4 exemptions for prior study (ie. I have another post grad degree) plus one of the subjects I completed was a double unit. That leaves me with 7 subjects. FASEA do not acknowledge the existence of double units, nor do they allow for subjects where an exemption was given for RPL (they only use the words ‘complete’/completed’) and you can’t use more than one degree to reach the 8-subject-rule. Believe me, I have read the documentation very carefully. I was hoping common sense would prevail, but the consultation period is over. My situation will not be a one-off. There will be many others like me. It appears those making the rules don’t understand university courses and aren’t listening. Meanwhile the directors with links to universities, who would certainly understand the implications of FASEA’s actions, are either asleep at the wheel or allowing their conflicts of interest to cloud their judgment.
Hey ‘anonymous’, do you work for FASEA? You seem so sure about the ‘relevant degree’ definition. Can you please explain to me how a subject can contain a course? The definition has me completely baffled:
‘[i]Relevant degree definition – 8 subjects at AQF 7, 8 or 9 that contain at least 8 courses in one or more of the designated related fields of study in any combination – financial planning, investment, accounting[/i] etc. etc. (Source: FASEA Education Pathways Policy, p4)
Why the hell wouldn’t an MFP be approved anyway? I thought the minimum was a grad dip now. Doesn’t make sense. Sounds like a money making exercise for uni mates of FASEA
Spot on. Those advisers who did the most to further their education before it became compulsory are the ones being heavily penalised by FASEA.
The message FASEA is sending is never, ever, do any education until the last minute when it becomes compulsory, and then do the bare minimum only. Anything earlier or extra will be wasted time and money.
FASEA approved course. What does that really mean. What number of “units” will this cover. 8,6,4,2 or 1. It’s time to be more specific guys – time is of an essence.
Headline is misleading because as you state in the article it is designed to meet FASEA requirements but I bet my bottom dollar it hasn’t been officially approved yet.
“[i]FASEA standards and regulations introduced as a result of findings during the Hayne royal commission.[/i]”
Ah Adrian, i’m sorry but given FASEA has been ever so painfully trying to develop it’s processes for nearly 2 years, FASEA had zero to do with the the RC findings.
And here they come to cash in.