In a wide-ranging interview with ifa, Mr Kendall revealed that the FPA has secured a “verbal confirmation” from FASEA that the widespread perception that degrees completed more than 10 years ago will not be recognised by the body is false.
The confirmation follows comments made by FASEA chief executive and former FPA employee Deen Sanders at the SMSF Association conference last week that the authority had not yet made a “hard and fast rule about it”, and comes despite the guidance clearly stating that advisers who completed a financial planning qualification but “not within the last 10 years” may have to undergo further study.
“The document is difficult to read,” Mr Kendall said. “Reading it and thinking there is a 10-year rule is a reasonable reading. I am assured by its creator [Deen Sanders] that that isn’t what it was intended to be and we’ve taken that at face value and we’ve asked for a written confirmation of that.
“I suspect it’s a bit of a red herring in there. After asking very directly that question, we are convinced that there is not in fact a 10-year rule. The fact that it has been reiterated at the SMSF Association [conference confirms] there isn’t a 10-year rule.”
Asked whether FASEA may have changed course following negative feedback from the financial advice industry, Mr Kendall would not speculate but said the FPA position on the matter was clear.
“If there was a 10-year rule, the FPA would be against it. You can bank that,” he said.
The FPA has today released a fact sheet outlining potential pathways for existing advisers to compliant levels of further education. The document can be accessed here: http://ifa.com.au/pdf/FASEA_Education_standards_factsheet_V2.pdf
Dr Sanders has declined numerous invitations to comment.
Listen to the full interview with Neil Kendall:
what about Marks FPA board member mate Neil Kendall who runs a firm called Financial-rescue, pursuing complaints against financial planners. any conflict there? He also has his own firm.
Deen very clearly said at the SMSFA conference that older degrees get STALED. So on the one hand their is this so called verbal agreement that the ten year rule doesn’t exist. But then the FASEA guidance very much does say there is a ten year rule and Deens only public announcement has clearly confirmed that he doesn’t accept STALED degrees and no amount of compulsory annual CPD is going to help.
FPA I call more complete rubbish from you.
Isn’t it wonderful that over 2 mths on from this FASEA guidance there is still no ability for consultation.
ODWYER is clearly leading another complete adviser stitch up.
ODWYER has to go, she is a cancer to the Financial Advice profession.
Would somebody pass on the definition of “consulting” to Dr Sanders for me?…the action or process of formally consulting or discussing… synonyms: discussion · dialogue · discourse · debate · negotiation · conference · deliberation. A grand canyon of difference has opened up between Dr Sander’s FASEA 10 year rule and the industry. The loss of trust and refusal to enter into a public discussion is untenable.
the best thing to do is to grandfather everyone who is [u]already an existing adviser[/u] so that:
1. those awarded CFP’s or the AFA designation can practice
2. those with RG146 can go on
3. those with degrees other than financial planning, i.e. commerce, economics, law, accountancy engineering, arts, + RG 146 to go on
in order to do so however, they must all sit and pass a comprehensive FASEA exam which should be developed with input from academics, the regulator, industry and practitioners. in this regard, the exam needs to be both comprehensive, covering a broadly all areas of finance, and reasonably difficult to pass.
all new entrants will need to have a degree in financial planning AND pass the FASEA exam, plus Professional Year etc
this solves the problem
does anybody disagree ?
Papa for President – when we eventually become a republic – vote for Papa
Sure can, I know plenty of advisers with only RG146 and grandfathered CFP who are really, really bad at their job so need this to get them to shape up or ship out. They are partly to blame as to why we are in this mess, their ‘experience’ is mostly in a time the industry was a joke.
Changes very harsh on advisers with an existing degree though, agree those need to be changed.
So you are essentially proposing everything the same as the existing framework, except removing the degree requirement for those who have never completed any degree.
Let’s also not ignore the fact that FASEA’s apparent incompetence stretches to the following two points.
1. The consultation period clearly ends by June 29 a hard & fast date. Yet the start date of Early 2018 is about as rubbery as a plantation.
2. FASEA has no contact details at all on their website nor are there instructions on how to contribute to the consultation period.
I guess my contribution will need to be addressed to the North Pole.
Every other financial planning regulation “consultation process” has been a sham. By not providing a delivery address in the first place, FASEA doesn’t need to employ someone to collect and shred all those pointless contributions.
“If there was a 10-year rule, the FPA would be against it. You can bank that.” Awkward choice of words! The conflicted interplay between FASEA, FPA, FPEC, Universities and Banks is where this nonsense started. You can’t run with the hare and hunt with the hound. It is simply not acceptable that those in publicly-funded roles – such as the Board and CEO of FASEA – won’t take unvetted questions in the public domain. It a consultant period for goodness sake. Now we are witnessing a carefully stage-managed plan of re-writing history on this issue. And, once again, we are talking about ourselves and not those we serve. There is nothing statesman/woman like about the current behaviours being exhibited. An excellent case study in “how not to” in the ethics module.
They aren’t publicly funded.
Admirable communication effort from Neil Kendall, but let’s not forget the FPA assured members that they would not be subject to Opt-In. Let’s also not forget that every other time regulators have conducted a “consultation process” it has been nothing of the sort. It is simply a trick to silence and delay any opposition until the bureaucrats’ preferred option is wheeled out as a fait accompli.
In his email to members, Kendall mentioned there has been no clarity from FASEA on “bridging courses” yet. This needs to be clarified by FASEA [b]right now[/b][i][/i], along with clarifying the “10 year rule” debacle. If FASEA tries to delay this until after the “consultation period” it should be a huge red flag that they have ulterior motives.
The clowns at the FPA created this circus for no good reason. Education is not the answer. Morals and ethics are the issue in every single bad egg case this industry has had.
Morals and ethics. Pretty simple but it doesn’t sell courses and doesn’t force memberships.
Getting the picture? Oh wait, maybe if I’m a “cfp” that’ll fix everything after giving the education sellers thousands of dollars.
Absolute circus this industry is.
Morals & ethics? How are u going to test for those?
The government wrote the legislation & created FASEA. Your comment is demonstrably false. Please refrain from spreading rubbish.
Why is the FASEA CEO declining to comment or allowing questions from the floor in Sydney? I thought it was a “consultation” period! Getting too hot in the kitchen?
The trust is lost with FASEA and the financial planning community in the so called “consultation period” when the starting point is as real as a Hollywood movie set!
There is still an issue that the only degrees recognised are degrees specific to financial planning which did not exist 20 years ago. Then you did a degree in business or commerce, subsequent Diploma in Financial Planning and then earned experience and CPD for the next twenty years – that is still not good enough according to the Fasea – you are not as qualified as a grad from last year who did a B.Bus FP with no experience
Exactly. This is the issue we should be talking about. Instead FASEA has wheeled out a trojan horse to distract us all, and this is the mob who will be writing our compulsory code of ethics!
The document linked to the story indicates those with a non FPEC degree could meet FASEA’s requirements by completing an “Approved Bridging Course”. Still no info from FASEA on what the criteria for these bridging courses are however. This info is now required urgently. It is the biggest missing piece of the whole puzzle and probably affects the largest number of planners.
That’s not what has been said at all. The pathway for existing advisers is still unclear, but someone with the qualifications you have described may have no need for additional education. What Sanders admitted to at the SMSFA Conf was “an under-estimation of the level of anxiety about any additional educational requirements”. There’s 6 yrs for existing advisers to meet any uplift in their education. Plenty of time to do a bridging course or Grad Dip in FP. Before that time, there’s the new adviser regs to be addressed, PY guidelines, Code of Ethics and the Compulsory Adviser Exam. Everyone has jumped to the last thing on the list
So which is it? No additional education? Bridging Course? Or a full Grad Dip FP? If it’s going to be a full Grad Dip for everyone with an existing degree this is excessive. And it implies FASEA Board conflict of interest. If there is any chance of this happening it needs to be nipped in the bud right now before it’s too late. Planners cannot relax and assume everything will be alright. We have been shafted too many times before by biased and conflicted bureaucrats. Until FASEA provides clarity, we need to assume the worst and fight it hard.
If the 10 year rule is adopted then I assume we will see Deen Sanders and all the senior lawyers at ASIC re-enrolling in university, not to mention all the doctors, engineers, teachers, nurses, and lawyers in the country. Isn’t that why we have CPD?
Red herring? Something a kin to a 3 year responsibility period under LIF. Interesting suck everyone in once again to focus on one aspect of the deal and get away with the proposed agenda. Years of service has to be on the agenda as the only true measure of qualification is experience. Don’t continue to be fooled or there will be no profession to quality for. When will people wake up?
You’re right Roger. A distraction using the left hand whilst the right hand is ignored and doing all of the stuff we really should be concentrating upon. People united.. that is what we lack. Hassle the Fed MP’s and flood the Minister with personal registered mail requiring a signature. she might actually realise WIGO and intervene. yeah, pigs might fly. we are headed into an abyss of ideology-driven politics with no real support for the coal-face adviser from anywhere. Therefore, it is up to each adviser to link with others and lobby hard.
The treatment of broad finance related degrees remain. No mention of those who went out and did degrees at a time prior to when financial plannning degrees were not available
that’s just what we need “a political game of statement and misstatement ” can we have some bloody grown ups in this mess
A red herring that the FPA created via their conflicted interactions with FASEA.
what a load of crap
Ben, if the intent and the document are not congruent, you are right, the document needs to be amended. That said, lets just get it done, tick it off and all go back to work.
FASEA’s real work as the professional body is to remove those not qualified to give advice e.g direct insurers, roll over super call centres, etc, etc…
No, that’s ASIC’s work. It’s just unfortunate that they are obsessed with financial planners
After attending the SMSF conference last week, I moved on with the understanding that the ten year issue is in reference to the possibility of RPL for individuals wanting the utilise prior learning to advance new study requirements. This I believe is specifically was where the ten year grey rule originated, and now has flowed across into their reference on degrees older than ten years are not good enough. I think this will likely turn out to be incorrect. But everyone one of us has differing circumstances. I have made several investigations and a lot is going on behind the scenes. My degree completed with RMIT in FP was completed in 2005. While I’m concerned it was completed more than ten years ago, I have been reassured that it will be fine. But of course no guarantees and FASEA are going to bring clarification out on this within the next two months we were told last week by Deen Sanders the fasea ceo
If I had provided that half baked paper as an assignment I would have failed and be told to pay another $2,000 to try again.
This is complete bull shit. It is there on page 5, point B. If FASEA has stuffed up, they should amend the document and issue a press release. How can we go into a consultation period with FASEA denying the contents of their own document.
No amount of back-peddling can disguise this backflip. It fills me with zero confidence in FASEA. The fact that they can’t even admit a clear misjudgement. Lets not forget that FASEA (Deen Sanders) chose to capitalise the word NOT in point B. There is no way that was meant as a note to academics that is a very clear line of their interpretation. The only good to come out of this so far is that they appear to be backflipping.