Adele Martin, while acknowledging both sides of the experience pathway debate, firmly believes that it will effectively achieve its intended goal of bolstering numbers within the industry.
Speaking on an upcoming ifa podcast, Ms Martin, founder of My Money Buddy and The Savings Squad podcast, said that while she feels the frustration, ultimately, the experience pathway is good for the industry as a whole.
“It would be super frustrating if you put time and effort, and money into this, and then at the same time, you probably weren’t growing your business or you took time away from the family to do this. So I would be frustrated too,” Ms Martin said.
“But then on the other side, how many people is this affecting?
“And I think, the thing is we have to do something. We have less advisers than ever, we’ve got more people retiring, but we have these huge gaps and AI and tech just isn’t there to be able to service them.
“If we don’t do this, what are the other choices?”
Last week, Parliament passed the experience pathway, a decision that has divided the industry.
Under the newly passed legislation, an adviser is deemed to have met the education requirements if they have 10 years (cumulative) experience providing advice between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2021, and have not recorded any disciplinary action on the Financial Advisers Register (FAR) before 31 December 2021. Advisers still need to pass the exam.
Advisers who have already met the requirements are displeased with the perceived free pass for their peers, while many worry it may set back the industry’s journey towards professionalisation.
Ms Martin, however, reminded that there are still measures in place ensuring standards are met.
“Don’t forget we’ve still got other standards, we’ve got CPD points they have to maintain, we’ve still got other things they have to do, it’s not like we’re throwing all professionalism out the door.”
One idea that has been suggested to reconcile both sides of the debate is to assign a different title to advisers who use the pathway, to help consumers differentiate between those who have met the educational requirements and are fully qualified advisers and those who have retained their position in the industry through the pathway.
However, Ms Adele does not endorse this proposal as a viable solution.
“I think that would confuse the public even more. I just say to people, be your own marketing machine. Put yourself out there and don’t worry about what everyone else is doing or calling themselves. You can’t control everyone else; you can control yourself,” she concluded.
To hear more from Ms Martin tune in to the ifa podcast this Wednesday.
You’re still better off not being financial adviser and not being certified (whether youve completed a FP degree or not). Tik Tok financial advisers can give advice without any fear of ASIC ruining their lives and without PI insurance, dealer group fees, CPD points or ASIC fees. If these Tik Tok advisers ever get caught they just get told by ASIC that they are not allowed to give financial advice, which they werent allowed to give in the first place.
Ms Adele, just dosen’t get it…giving a free pass, as she describes, as a reason so we can just increase the numbers, is not going to benefit this industry longer term.
Name me a single Treasury official in this country that writes legislation or consults on laws that dosen’t have a Degree. Consumers expect professionals to have a certain level of education, experience, and training. We can debate about the value of a degree but at the end of the day it’s all about how we are perceived by both consumers and Treasury/ASIC. A certain perception now (that being we have less education than hairdressers) has lead to Australians being priced out of advice and bad legislation and Advisers being the scape goat of every product every CBA like product scandal.
I agree 100% with your sentiment of Adele’s rationale being flawed and simple. However in terms of pathways, it is common across most professions to have different pathways i.e. legal (JD as opposed to Bachelor) and accounting (where you could be cpa or ipa without completing a degree depending on the pathway and post-grad studies). But with all professions, there is a minimum standard, so I also feel the experience “pathway” is disappointing particularly as this will benefit advisers who already received the benefit of working in a non-witchhunt environment prior to RC with much less regulation and costs, should they have recevied another “free pass”? Not just for the sake of numbers, no.