In a letter seen by ifa, the Deakin University Business School associate professor wrote to Assistant Minister for Financial Services Jane Hume, expressing his concerns over the poor management of conflicts of interest at the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA).
Dr Raftery’s letter to the assistant minister comes just two weeks after FASEA published an approved list of gradate diplomas and bridging courses.
“Having carefully thought about FASEA for a long time, I feel that there is no option but to remove four directors – Catherine Walter, Mark Brimble, Matthew Rowe and Simon Longstaff – who have been there from the start and have played instrumental roles since establishment in April 2017,” Dr Raftery said.
“Sadly, all four have significant conflicts of interest which have not been adequately managed and sadly coming to the fore in recent times.”
According to Dr Raftery, FASEA director Mark Brimble, who is also the head of department at Griffith Business School, continues to be paid by both the university and the government authority.
“Griffith received clear preferential treatment to other higher education providers,” Dr Raftery said. “It is a particular concern to me that Griffith Uni has received preferential treatment for its bridging course on commercial and business law that was approved as a financial services law unit when there is zero overlap between the two curriculums – this is compounded with Griffith having a longstanding partnership with the largest dealer group in the country (AMP) and the fact that one of the FASEA’s more influential directors is the head of the accounting, economics and finance department, which includes financial planning.”
Graduate diplomas and bridging courses are requirements for existing advisers to meet the education standard across the existing adviser pathways as defined in the FPS001 Education Pathways Policy.
FASEA explained in a 14 June statement that the approved courses and diplomas would be added to FASEA’s Degree, Qualifications and Courses legislative instrument.
“The release of the approved list of bridging courses and graduate diplomas gives advisers a clear pathway to meet the education standard by 1 January 2024,” said FASEA chief executive Stephen Glenfield.
More to come.
G) I work for an industry fund and give intra fund advice so what quals do I need…None!
[quote=not that easy ]@CFP Qualified Person, the trouble is where does this stop. all the “existing advisers” are also saying that, and as follows:
a. I have never had a complaint been practicing for 20, 30, 40 years so I am already qualified and should be exempt
b. I am an accountant already practicing for 20, 30, 40 years i already adhere to code of ethics monitored by a separate body and i am already degree qualified thus i should be exempt
c. I am an investment adviser and hold a masters degree, and a designation of equal compare to cfp or cpa/ipa/ca and thus I should be exempt
d. i am just an expert and have 20, 30, 40 years of lived experience, am a multi millionaire, and thus i should be exempt as i have practical experience that can prove my testament to being suitably qualified thus i should be exempt
e. i am a solicitor, financial planner, mortgage broker, accountant, barrister, i know it all, run an afsl that has tangible assets on it’s balance sheet of $6m AND i know the law, and i should definitely be exempt
f. then there is one group of advisers who have either committed to an approved bachelors/grad dip/masters, exam etc. who are saying, everyone should be qualified to the same extent we are so that they can work in a separate discipline that is financial planning, and we should have a profession called financial planning with only those suitably qualified to the extent required calling themselves one and should be practicing in.
btw, i am in camp f. but i can’t say i disagree with those in a to e. and, i have called for all existing advisers to be grandfathered but have been called out by many for it.
[/quote]
I believe your solicitor/financial planner/mortgage broker/ accountant/ barrister/ afsl operator/ with 6m tangible net assets / is # being taught a lesson
I know why that last comment was by Anonymous!! No intestinal fortitude! Disregard the comments. If you do not have the guts to state who you are, you should not be given an audience. Gutless !!
[quote=Anonymous]Former student of Rafterys – Good academic maybe however in the years since i graduated i must say how disappointed i have been with his continued conduct and Deakin’s association with him along the way.
Never has had anything positive to say about FASEA or the objective its trying to set. (I imagine this would be a different case if he was approached by FASEA for consultation in place of Brimble & Walter)
Similarly, he has continued his barrage against the FPA, its CEO and management (and in effect its members whom have been advocated for) leading to him being banned from attending all events moving forward..
I think its a bit rich commenting on inherent conflicts whilst sitting in bed with the dinosaurs over @ the AIOFP whom wouldn’t even pass as used car salesmen.
Time to get with the times and out of your academic bubble, if your not part of the solution, your part of the problem with this industry.
This industry is changing for the better and yes there will be teething issues along the way however about time to check your ego at the door for the broader industries benefit i reckon (This wouldn’t be an issue if Deakin was the benefactor i’m sure).
Back to your conflicted remuneration fuelled junket in Portugal, flogging your Tax Man Book, Social Media Image & AIOFP Junkets trumpet all while preaching the ‘ethical’ trumpet. Hopefully Deakin come to their senses and ensure you stop representing the interests of alumni moving forward.
Im at a loss as to whose interest you are advocating for anymore apart from your own ?
[/quote]
Adrian here. Sorry for upsetting you. A few valid points. FWIW, I am a full supporter of the move to professionalism but you need to keep those in charge accountable & hence when I have been critical at times with FASEA & call out things where appropriate. As far the FPA, please don’t attempt to re-write history as there was no reasonable basis for banning me at their conference last year other than being guilty by association for comments made by others. As a past student you would have known how big an advocate I was with them, promoting student memberships and the like & was a proud member for 17 years. Yes I have been vocal against certain staff subsequently but I think that most would understand why. In relation to Portugal, yes I was there in the middle of a family holiday whilst I sort out my mum’s estate in Ireland. I am the honorary Chair of the AIOFP (ie I get paid nothing) & paid $4700 for my conference fees in addition to my own airfares and accommodation for the 4 of us – so its not exactly a junket! Sorry for promoting my book – yep I do get royalties from it which I pay tax on. FYI, it is a bestseller for the 9th year in a row. I first wrote it after the passing of our daughter Sophie when I didn’t have any other income to supplement the family. In future posts, if you could plug my charity work that would be appreciated. You will be pleased to know that I have resigned from Deakin. I finish up 26 August as I am disillusioned with having to teach experienced advisers a suite of “101 subjects” that they already know & passed a national exam prior to. I don’t want to be seen as part of the education industry profiting from the changes. The transition could have & should have been alot simpler, quicker & cheaper. So I won’t embarrass you any more despite lifting the profile of your degree as one of the best in Australia. Finally, I don’t necessarily like making callouts like this – I don’t gain anything from it at all & in a lot of ways it is rather stressful when I put my name out there – I do think it takes courage to put your name to something & the fact that there has been silence & no refuting of my claims does tell a story in itself. Feel free to drop me a line privately – happy to discuss further.
[quote=anon]Anyone else wonder why he didn’t have the courage to say any of this while he was employed at Deakin? Far safer to run away and then throw accusations. [/quote]
Adrian here. Still employed at Deakin (I leave on August 26). The actual incidences have only come to light in the last month. I have approached FASEA several times about them wit zero response. Far safer would have been to throw the accusations under an anonymous name.
[quote=PVA]You know you are in trouble when a known blunderer like Adrian calls you out for your blunders…however in this instance I believe Adrian is entirely correct. [/quote]
Adrian here. Funny line! All I will say is that we all make mistakes but few of us admit to them (or put our name to them!)
[quote=Anonymous] [b]The FASEA exam is invalid[/b][b][/b][/quote] Silly me, forgot to mention section 9.2
[quote=PVA]You know you are in trouble when a known blunderer like Adrian calls you out for your blunders…however in this instance I believe Adrian is entirely correct. [/quote]
best comment on this forum. like … EVER
My prediction is just watch the lecture halls popping up shortly, named after certain FASEA board members for “contribution to the financial planning sector”. In my 30 years in the finance sector the Uni sector is just (if not more) sales driven as any other sector of the community and they are milking it now.
Planners should be questioning the FAILURE of the tax payer funded University sector. Why are we are forced into doing “Bridging courses” and if wanting to attain a “proper” University qualification we have to study in addition subjects written at entry level. Most “experienced” advisers have years of CPD points being forced to obtain these via the private sector, due a lack of material via Uni’s. In short many don’t have Uni qualifications because Uni’s have not been writing relevant subject material. This has not been recognized. Advanced & specialist subjects such as Aged Care, SMSF, subjects to meet TPB requirements are usually only electives, not available, and or mostly via private sector. Now, in short the answer is Uni’s are broke and it’s far profitable to re-badge subjects than write new “meaningful” “relevant” subjects and are forcing experienced advisers to redo subjects or PAY for prior learning. If you’re being forced into 1 to 5 bridging subjects you’d want a post graduate qualification and Uni’s are taking advantage of that.
I agree with Raftery’s comments re the FASEA board. The Code of Ethics is the biggest problem. It is completely unworkable nonsense. It hasn’t been properly worked through and FASEA did not listen to feedback from industry. But I’m going to throw a hand grenade into the debate on a completely separate topic. [b]The FASEA exam is invalid[/b][b][/b]. Apparently it doesn’t satisfy the criteria set out in the legislation. FASEA haven’t been informed. Sh1t will hit the fan. 600 advisers will need to re-do the test regardless of whether they passed or failed. Oh dear. Maybe next time around they could properly test the exam, as I have heard many of the questions are utter nonsense, with multiple choice answers that are ambiguous and case studies lacking in the necessary detail. It would also be nice to know what the pass mark is for god’s sake, whether they are grading us on 3 separate topics as originally planned and wtf is going on with the questions with 3 true/false propositions. Will we need to get all 3 right to get any marks from these questions? It’s all a mystery. What is patently clear, is that FASEA are planning to retrospectively makes these decisions depending on the results of the first 600 advisers who have paid for the privilege, and sacrificed a great deal of time, only to be used as human guinea pigs. For an organisation charged with the responsibility of raising ethical standards, this is an utter joke. I can’t imagine a more cruel and incompetent organisation. It’s time to clean out the board and re-balance with a minimum of 50% experienced, practicing financial advisers.
[i]Anonymos 19 hours ago.
People just need to get over it and do the study or leave Financial Planning ! It is that simple ![/i][i][/i]
[b]Nice response from the FARSEA board[/b][b][/b]
I have (almost) no words to comment on this. It defies belief this has gone on so long when the very people preaching for standards that force advisers to work in the ‘best interest’ of clients and give ‘full disclosure’ of ‘conflicts of interest’ are breaching their very own principles. yes, sack them all and extract any fees paid to them that they received to feather their own nests at consumers expense.
So – FASEA is all about ETHICS????? And preaching to the converted????? It’s the old story of ‘do as I say, not as I do!’ If they were advisers they would have been banned long ago.
Mr Raftery is a little late to the party William Johns wrote about this issue in 9 January 2018 https://www.ifa.com.au/news/18771-fasea-board-conflicts-of-interest-questioned. Johns then wrote a follow up article on Linked in titled “FASEA is set to unleash future robots” which you can find on his linkedin profile that sets out some interesting analysis of the reasons behind FASEA and how the FASEA Board and Government are being used to allow Fintech to take over the advice industry.
I guess the one thing you can be certain of in this industry change and despite the best intentions of Government and Hayne conflicts of interest will remain – Its human nature and no amount of legislation or education will stop it.
In FASEA case the conflict of continuing education has been handed on to a Board that has clear conflicts but can’t see them. – Nothing to See Here!
Does receiving insurance commissions breach Standard 3?
Anonymos, what a silly uninformed statement. It’s not that simple at all. That’s an affront to all hard working advisers who are going through some extremely challenging times.
You should be more considered in your throwaway comments.
Once these conflicted directors are removed, the government needs to review some of the conflicted decisions those people made. In particular, FASEA’s refusal to provide any RPL for previous ethics courses needs to be overturned. FASEA’s rationale for this, that the FASEA Code is new so everyone needs to do an expensive bridging course, is not credible. The FASEA Code will only be a small component of the broad based ethics bridging course everyone is being forced to pay for. Besides which, everyone needs to study the FASEA Code independently to pass the exam, whose deadline is 3 years earlier than the bridging course.
FASEA director Simon Longstaff works for an ethics course provider and writes ethics textbooks. He is likely to personally benefit from the vast sums of money paid by advisers forced to repeat their ethics training. He already has his textbook listed on FASEA’s official Suggested Reading list for the FASEA exam. Not only is his situation unacceptably conflicted, it is also unbelievably hypocritical from a supposed high priest of ethics!
Former student of Rafterys – Good academic maybe however in the years since i graduated i must say how disappointed i have been with his continued conduct and Deakin’s association with him along the way.
Never has had anything positive to say about FASEA or the objective its trying to set. (I imagine this would be a different case if he was approached by FASEA for consultation in place of Brimble & Walter)
Similarly, he has continued his barrage against the FPA, its CEO and management (and in effect its members whom have been advocated for) leading to him being banned from attending all events moving forward..
I think its a bit rich commenting on inherent conflicts whilst sitting in bed with the dinosaurs over @ the AIOFP whom wouldn’t even pass as used car salesmen.
Time to get with the times and out of your academic bubble, if your not part of the solution, your part of the problem with this industry.
This industry is changing for the better and yes there will be teething issues along the way however about time to check your ego at the door for the broader industries benefit i reckon (This wouldn’t be an issue if Deakin was the benefactor i’m sure).
Back to your conflicted remuneration fuelled junket in Portugal, flogging your Tax Man Book, Social Media Image & AIOFP Junkets trumpet all while preaching the ‘ethical’ trumpet. Hopefully Deakin come to their senses and ensure you stop representing the interests of alumni moving forward.
Im at a loss as to whose interest you are advocating for anymore apart from your own ?
@CFP Qualified Person, the trouble is where does this stop. all the “existing advisers” are also saying that, and as follows:
a. I have never had a complaint been practicing for 20, 30, 40 years so I am already qualified and should be exempt
b. I am an accountant already practicing for 20, 30, 40 years i already adhere to code of ethics monitored by a separate body and i am already degree qualified thus i should be exempt
c. I am an investment adviser and hold a masters degree, and a designation of equal compare to cfp or cpa/ipa/ca and thus I should be exempt
d. i am just an expert and have 20, 30, 40 years of lived experience, am a multi millionaire, and thus i should be exempt as i have practical experience that can prove my testament to being suitably qualified thus i should be exempt
e. i am a solicitor, financial planner, mortgage broker, accountant, barrister, i know it all, run an afsl that has tangible assets on it’s balance sheet of $6m AND i know the law, and i should definitely be exempt
f. then there is one group of advisers who have either committed to an approved bachelors/grad dip/masters, exam etc. who are saying, everyone should be qualified to the same extent we are so that they can work in a separate discipline that is financial planning, and we should have a profession called financial planning with only those suitably qualified to the extent required calling themselves one and should be practicing in.
btw, i am in camp f. but i can’t say i disagree with those in a to e. and, i have called for all existing advisers to be grandfathered but have been called out by many for it.
Australian Universities are lowering admission standards because of lowering enrolments. For a year I have been saying in this and other forums that FASEA was invented by Treasury to force advisers to fund Universities to save the Commonwealth having to do so. Ministers love FASEA because there is more chance some of their little pet projects can now get up. Its not about standards or ethics-that’s just flimflam
They are just trying to make a buck.. On ’em.
(Sigh)…I thought Raftery was supposed to be ‘whistleblowing’ or something. Instead he’s decided to ‘make public’ something that has been in plain sight for years – a bunch of vested interests (university employees) in unique positions (FASEA board members) to further their employer’s interests. As if anyone should be surprised.
People just need to get over it and do the study or leave Financial Planning !
It is that simple !
HOW DARE THEY pontificate on ethical behaviour whilst having serious conflicts of interest of their own. Seriously, how dare they. The associations must come out and call for the resignation of this board. I think that the board should be audited against FASEA standard 2 and 3, “you must not advise, refer to act in any other manner where you have a conflict or interest or duty”, if the people running the show are corrupt and cannot meet the standards that they themselves set, then how on earth can they expect advisors to live up to those standards? This is a total fiasco and the lack of independence threatens the entire purpose of establishing FASEA in the first place. How can consumers trust FASEA to monitor standards of behaviour when it is being abused by those running it? Then there are the numerous reports from advisers being misled by education providers into more expensive courses instead of doing cheaper ADFP units. All aboard the education gravy train!
this is all about MONEY nothing else and come in spinners Financial advisers
You should have seen the massive text book we had to study on Ethics within the Financial Planning Association’s CFP course. It made no sense at all (other than a cash grab) to have us study more about Ethics (even those who completed the CFP program.
Would be interested to know if Dr Raftery has raised this anywhere else at all? (i.e. directly with FASEA) and if so – what the response was. Regardless, it doesn’t pass the smell test.
My argument for not wanting to do the ethics module is that after 32 years in practice surely I know what ethics are. Having seen the behavioiur of the FASEA directors my argument is blown to the winds as it is clear there are grave doubts about the FASEA directors. What a shambles – it is time to stop this fiasco now.
Return all salaries and benefits received….for the last 10 years and a permanent ASIC ban. Oh, sorry this is a fairy tale.
Oh the irony – from a group of people trying to educate an industry on ETHICS
They have created a minimum $55,000,000 education industry out of thin air…25,000 advisers,each doing the exam and only 1 unit – multiply this by 6 units on average and the figure becomes more like $300,000,000 – looks like the Directors may be significant beneficiaries of all of this….not the consumer…not the advisers….its simply astonishing ..
Thanks Adrian. You say you act for advisers, so why did you have a comment on The Australian’s FaceBook post of the Top 50 advisers in Australia saying ‘there are some real peanuts’ in the list. Conveniently you’ve deleted the comment, but there’s screen shots of it in circulation. Let’s be real here. You’re only calling there’s a conflict simply because you/Deakin aren’t benefitting from the FASEA reforms. Please don’t dress up self-interest as concern for the adviser community – we’re not that stupid.
I am beyond furious and the absolute hypocrisy of it all. These people at FASEA – all of them, are an utter disgrace!
They sit in their bell tower being paid huge amounts of money, preaching to everyone about honesty and integrity while at the same time secretly conspiring to just line their own pockets.
I’ve suspected this was the case right form the very beginning when you could clearly see the lack of common sense being applied as it unfolded. Risk Advisors should not have to undergo 8 courses when probably 5 of them aren’t relevant to what we do – OR WANT TO DO. It just cannot be allowed to go through as is being proposed with all this uncertainty and mystery surrounding it.
If it does….I’m out. I will not stay in an industry where so much corruption, dishonesty and collusion exists.
This whole process has been a farce designed from the outset. A blatant drive for favoured education providers to suck the life-blood from advisers. We should start lobbying hard for past experience to count more towards the new standards.
You cannot write better corrupt comedy than this.
Once upon a time….
Well maybe that is only in fairy tales.
However in the past there used to be an expectation that someone took up such senior public roles as sitting on a govt boards as they came to the end of a successful career and were not potentially conflicted by what they personally might get out of it now or later.
Having people assigned as gate keepers while also having them being involved in what is to be controlled is never going to work over the longer term.
Honestly would you allow Alan Joyce or a Qantas executive generally be involved with airport flight access?
Canberra “bubble” is full of lobbyists and journalists who talk to each other so much they think what they say is real. The same people who told us Bill Shorten and Winx were the same thing.
The pollies need to listen to people who are not lobbyists paid by interest groups. However those people scratching out a living don’t have time to come bearing gifts.
Keep up the fight Adrian but i suspect the lobbyist juggernauts will just keep getting away with it.
You know you are in trouble when a known blunderer like Adrian calls you out for your blunders…however in this instance I believe Adrian is entirely correct.
Multiple subjects at $3,000 per subject, for content that we more or less already know……..
And despite an industry exam (that comes first) that will ‘screen’ our ethics and compliance knowledge.
FASEA directors: ‘let’s milk that cow….’
So much for ethic authority seems like sell serving to me
Anyone else wonder why he didn’t have the courage to say any of this while he was employed at Deakin? Far safer to run away and then throw accusations.
Ah the Ethical folks at FASEA acting anything but Ethically.
What a complete and utter FARSEA this process has been and continues to be.
[b]Surely all the members of the FARSEA Board should be made to do the Ethics course – seems they have a lot to learn about Ethics.[/b][b][/b]
…and next up we have the brand new PRESCRIBED course books recently published and authored by…[drum roll] Catherine Walter, Mark Brimble, Matthew Rowe and Simon Longstaff
The behavior from the University sector is just shameful.
If it wasn’t a nightmare it would be a joke!
FASEA is not even the industry’s biggest concern. It was indeed conflicts and poor supervision. Now the proposal is to apparently “repair” financial services (including the vast majority that do not need fixing) by shoveling their already fragile livelihoods over to the custody of a conflicted parasite known as FASEA.
Not Happy!
You don’t have a degree. Simple as that. Get one like I and many thousands of others have,
just like everything else in this industry at moment – we have all lost faith
Totally agree with Dr Rafferty, FASEA is a disgrace riddled with conflict and incompetence. The unethical setting the ethical standard. It’s a joke except advisers are not laughing
Staggered that Mr Raftery continues to get so much air time with the trade press. Was the letter addressed from Portugal where he is currently attending the AIOFP conference as Chairperson? How tone deaf can an industry association be to host a conference in Europe? I would much rather see the education & ethical standards set by the current directors of FASEA than any associates of AIOFP.
They all should resign as they have not been truthful or honest about this whole matter. It’s totally ridiculous how someone who has done the full diploma of financial planning via a university such as Deakin via the FPA has to do 8 units again. What a load of rubbish. Do accounts or doctors that did their degree 10 or 15 years ago have to re-do theirs? of course there would need to be a bridging course to go from a diploma to degree but not have it recognised just supports this is a cash grab.
….. and I call for $500 a subject Grad Dip subjects due to the volume increase the educational institutions will be receiving. Reckon Rafferty and my requests will fall on deaf ears though……
You can’t make this stuff up