FASEA has spent months deliberating whether to include the CA designation and has now approved the applicated to have the coursework recognised as prior learning.
FASEA’s chief executive Stephen Glenfield said the awarding of the credits provided appropriate recognition to advisers who undertook further study.
“The awarding of credits for coursework to attain the CPA and CAANZ designations provides appropriate recognition to existing advisers who have undertaken these further studies,” Mr Glenfield said.
FASEA said those who completed the coursework to attain the CPA designation in or after 1989 would be awarded one credit recognition for prior learning.
In addition, advisers who completed specific financial planning electives as part of the study to attain the CPA designation have been awarded two credits for prior learning.
The announcement comes following an application from the associations and is recognition of the course content and assessments undertaken to complete the program.
A maximum of two credits towards completion of higher education requirements can be awarded for an existing adviser who has completed one or more of the prescribed approved courses to attain a professional designation.
Chartered Accounts ANZ financial advice leader Bronny Speed welcomed the announcement and looked forward to clarifying what studies would count.
“Having worked hard with, and alongside, FASEA over the last eighteen months to lift standards, the next step is to continue to engage with them to clarify what studies will count for further credits.”
“This includes maximum recognition for their completion of a relevant degree, further studies to gain the CA designation as well as studies to enable registration on ASIC’s Financial Adviser Register,” she said.
I’m no FPA lover, however CPA is much worse. The previous CEO ripped those poor members for millions to promote his book and place pictures of himself all around the world. Please spare me that CPA are a leader of any kind
This FASEA mess all seems a bit convenient that the government takes millions away from funding from the university sector than hand millions back to them on a platter with us advisers here to pick up the tab. $2,500 to learn about ethics! You’re kidding me.
[quote=Amanda Hugenkiz][i]WTF? said; 3 hours ago.
So the CFP designation was able to match all 11 subject areas required to receive the MAXIMUM 2 credits. The CA/CPA designation was only able to match 1 or 2 of the 11 areas, but still received 50% of the maximum available credits??????????????????[/i][i][/i]
This is because the FPA is not a professional body. Look at the behaviour of the CEO and look at FPA members such as CBA Financial Planning and AMP FP. Bodies that represent members and Australians get things done. Professional bodies such as the AMA dosen’t get payments from Tobacco and Drug Companies and has the ear of the legislators. CPA Australia dosen’t get payments from Xero, Reckon and in this case has managed to get things achieved as well. So just how is that FASEA, FoFA, LIF, FASEA, falling practice valuations, falling public opinions, rising Government intervention, zero new entrants, and costs so high that you can’t serve paying clients anymore…how is that all working out for you?? You’re obviously happy given you pay membership fees each year….oh wait that’s right your product flogging company paid for your membership. [/quote][quote=Amanda Hugenkiz][i]WTF? said; 3 hours ago.
So the CFP designation was able to match all 11 subject areas required to receive the MAXIMUM 2 credits. The CA/CPA designation was only able to match 1 or 2 of the 11 areas, but still received 50% of the maximum available credits??????????????????[/i][i][/i]
so the CA/CPA’s were granted 1 x credit so provided they have a relevant degree they only need to do the fasea ethics and another bridging subject. two at most.
while the CFP’s were granted two credits, so if they also have a relevant degree they only need to do the ethics subject.
seems like a win for the CFP’s
An excellent decision in my view, this supports accountants for the study they have undertaken to reach that qualification but does not exclude their requirement for ongoing education, FP studies or other areas of learning deficiencies. Common sense , now the next step will be to recognize the study of life agents, and brokers, and those who been planning since 1989 in a fairer manner than the initial rules carved out.
I’m just here to read the comments…..
[quote=Anonymous]I think this is to keep accountants happy and giving advice when all the financial advisers leave the industry. After all, if the accountants stop giving advice, who will be left? only industry funds. Great outcome for the public…NOT[/quote][quote=Anonymous]I think this is to keep accountants happy and giving advice when all the financial advisers leave the industry. After all, if the accountants stop giving advice, who will be left? only industry funds. Great outcome for the public…NOT[/quote]
hardly a win for the accountants. they were going to have to do 4 subjects they get 1 credit, so they still have to do 3 bridging units, plus an exam and also 40 hours of CPD
the accountants (but of course) were hoping for a total exemption to fasea’s education requirements
[quote=Disillusioned FCA]It is beyond a joke that the most highly qualified professionals in Australia need to do another 7 subjects in order to continue giving advice, even though in my situation I have been doing just that for the past 34 years. All my qualifications were obtained prior to 2014 so do not count?
can you clarify how, “you are the most highly qualified professionals in australia”
and why your qualifications before 2014 don’t count?
if you have a relevant degree you only need to do 3 more subjects the bridging courses
[i]”lawyers and education providers who have no actual coal-facing experience in what they’re designing and enforcing on others”[/i][i][/i]
Good call ‘A’, but wait til you do the exam. Then you will discover a whole new level of muppets with no practical experience. The questions are atrocious. The fools didn’t even list the maximum marks for each question, as required by their own legislation, so the exam was invalid!!! IIf FASEA was featured as an episode of Rob Stich’s Utopia, it wouldn’t be funny because the plot wouldn’t be even remotely believable. A Code of Ethics that is completely unworkable, an Education Standard that is unfinished and a complete mess, an exam that was invalid and they have the gall to tell us they will make up the pass mark as they go along and vary it from one batch to the next to suit themselves….
Amanda Hugenkiz – don’t assume who pays for my fees. I have always paid for all of the industry fees from my own pocket and have NEVER imposed that on anyone else.
[i]WTF? said; 3 hours ago.
So the CFP designation was able to match all 11 subject areas required to receive the MAXIMUM 2 credits. The CA/CPA designation was only able to match 1 or 2 of the 11 areas, but still received 50% of the maximum available credits??????????????????[/i][i][/i]
This is because the FPA is not a professional body. Look at the behaviour of the CEO and look at FPA members such as CBA Financial Planning and AMP FP. Bodies that represent members and Australians get things done. Professional bodies such as the AMA dosen’t get payments from Tobacco and Drug Companies and has the ear of the legislators. CPA Australia dosen’t get payments from Xero, Reckon and in this case has managed to get things achieved as well. So just how is that FASEA, FoFA, LIF, FASEA, falling practice valuations, falling public opinions, rising Government intervention, zero new entrants, and costs so high that you can’t serve paying clients anymore…how is that all working out for you?? You’re obviously happy given you pay membership fees each year….oh wait that’s right your product flogging company paid for your membership.
It took THAT long to work this out? Brimming with confidence for FASEA we are. Bureaucracy at it’s finest.
You’re not getting one cent from me FASEA nor are any of the universities that 3 of your 9 Board Members apparently have financial arrangements with.
The lack of common sense you’ve shown since your inception and the damage you’ve inflicted on this industry is something I simply can’t stomach any longer so like hundreds, if not thousands of advisers out there, I’m getting out!!!
Congratulations on the appalling legacy you leave on this industry….you have so much blood on your hands.
My clients receive much greater professionalism from me than any of your Board Members have shown and I sleep at night with an absolute clear conscience knowing that. How any of you at FASEA can sleep at all, with what you’re trying to get away with, just astounds me.
The recognition noted above hopefully triggers the beginning of the end for FASEA.
I think this is to keep accountants happy and giving advice when all the financial advisers leave the industry. After all, if the accountants stop giving advice, who will be left? only industry funds. Great outcome for the public…NOT
Advisers no more! in 10 years it will be know as the Accounting Sphere. Do your accounting and Financial Planning under the one degree
Fee For Service for accounting and FP services.
The longest professional trade keeps on giving (accounting that is)
It is beyond a joke that the most highly qualified professionals in Australia need to do another 7 subjects in order to continue giving advice, even though in my situation I have been doing just that for the past 34 years. All my qualifications were obtained prior to 2014 so do not count? What a complete disrespect for the advice industry and further alienates the quality (if that is even possible) of academics that simply do not understand. This will result in Australian’s not receiving quality advice and the many advisers who were unsure of their future will now be planning their exit into retirement. Goodbye to practice valuations, I just hope you have made appropriate provisions. Seriously Government needs to step in and yesterday to resolve what is a complete lack of understanding and an embarrassment. The respect for advice, advisers, qualified Accountant professionals and the quality of the Australian financial system has just been placed in the bin. And we let these lunatics with vested interest manage the show – really?
‘A’ stated -Oh that’s right – lawyers and education providers who have no actual coal-facing experience in what they’re designing and enforcing on others. [quote][/quote][quote][/quote]
Even the lawyers who have to do CPD per year (10 I have heard) yet they dont have to do an exam to remain in their profession. If a Dr has been a Dr for last 25 years and kept in the game with keep qualified do they have to do a exam of mother of all exams or there is the door , piss off your useless and don’t add value.
So the CFP designation was able to match all 11 subject areas required to receive the MAXIMUM 2 credits. The CA/CPA designation was only able to match 1 or 2 of the 11 areas, but still received 50% of the maximum available credits??????????????????
It appears that adviser are expected to cheer, that they are help prop up the education industry with all the additional study and fees that this entails…
Line ’em up . Who is next the stockbrokers who still take commissions for new issues ? ( Its ok to take commissions because they are stockbrokers ie 1% placement fee go figure for nothing /) . Surprised the Mortgage brokers still taking commissions are not next cab off the rack !!! next property developers ??
new reforms? sounds more like consistent lobbying paid off…
I still find it incredible that you can, as an Adviser (or even Accountant to some extent, putting aside Adviser ongoing CPD) spend thousands of dollars studying under Finsia/Tribeca/Kaplan etc gaining qualifications PLUS spending hours and hours of your life doing so to enter the occupation in the first place PLUS hours and hours each year completing CPD assessments PLUS hours and hours each year in conferences PLUS hours and hours each year reading technical papers PLUS have decades of experience….only to be awarded at most 2 credit points towards the new educational requirements. WTF were the incompetent muppets who came up with this?? Oh that’s right – lawyers and education providers who have no actual coal-facing experience in what they’re designing and enforcing on others.