In a letter to members, AFA chief executive Philip Kewin said the association had met with Ms O’Dwyer on Monday to explain numerous concerns members have with regard to FASEA’s professional and education standards for advisers.
“We have a number of serious concerns about the proposals and the negative impact they will have on the future of advice and the impact on the broader community,” said Mr Kewin.
“We specifically addressed our concerns with the education standards, including the definition of a related degree and the lack of recognition for unrelated degrees, advanced diplomas (or DFP 1-8), and professional designations. We also took the opportunity to express our concerns about the potential impact upon the financial advice profession if a practical solution could not be found.”
Mr Kewin said the national exam was also flagged with the minister, specifically regarding the lack of detail currently available on the content of the exam, as well as the length and the marks required for a passing grade.
“The minister expressed a view that this appeared to be unreasonable. She did make the point that this was a consultation process, however we noted that consultation should not be run on the basis of ambit claims and unreasonable expectations as the starting point,” Mr Kewin said.
“The minister noted that FASEA was an independent body, however she agreed to discuss our concerns with them.”
What a bunch of babies…scared of an exam…are you grown men or what? do you know your stuff? clearly not, that’s the only reason old planners are scared. Save us all the trouble and retire fatsos!
Younggun , we paved the way for you you little upstart. You too will be old one day, when you are I hope you get the respect you are showing here!
Geez you’d want to make sure you pass with that kind of attitude there sport.
Really troll? You think this is because grownups are scared of an exam? Let me enlighten you – why should we have to pay again for study that we have already completed previously and paid for and sat exams for? No other industry would accept that.
By the way, this isn’t 1940. Despite your obvious ignorance there are plenty of women in this industry who are advisers too.
IFA, I see you are no longer moderating comments that don’t contribute to an intelligent conversation. That’s a shame.
Its only Lip Service from Odwyer
Why would any client want someone managing their financial affairs that cannot complete 1 subject a semester over the next few years in a course which they apparently have a lot of experience in! Anyone that cannot meet these well telegraphed changes (which in the long run will help all of us) should take their bat and ball and go home.
I agree totally with your comments however the one sticking point is that FASEA have not told advisers which courses will be approved have they? I have written previously that undertaking one subject each 6 months on the very job we do each day cannot be seen as too difficult. Old advisers stuck in the old world will disagree because they are clinging to their old ways and want to just last another 5 years or so.
Why should we be forced to study what we have already studied ?
How about you state your starting point for FASEA – what education do you have or have done ?
I have B.Econ, Full DFP, SMSF Specialist courses and designation, Estate Planning Specialist Course, 20 years real advisers experience, 20 years of 30 plus hrs pa CPD & 13 yrs running an AFSL as Responsible Manager.
Why do FASEA get to act like they have invented education and make people re educate?
I’d like to take her word at face value but when I met her in Albany WA at the start of last week and expressed my opinion of the whole mess her initial response was “to speak to your associations to get them to advocate for you” to which I said “I’m not a member of either as they appear to not be working in advisers interests” so to that she said “well make a submission to FASEA” to which I know that one individual’s submission to FASEA bears no weight v an association’s submission. I eventually did send in a submission re the CPD requirements and made some pertinent points. I encourage other to do the same, for what it’s worth.
All advisers with existing good education & experience should lodge submission to FASEA, it only take 1 page to state your case and why its not taking into account past education properly.
And no i would take O’Dwyers word either, she is sooooooooo arrogant.
Im loving FASEA, yes ill have to go do the 3 subject bridging course. But there are so many YOUNG cowboys out there who have only done the DFP and havent got skin in the game and only care about sales numbers.
Its sad that we will lose all the older advisers who have been around for ages and care about their clients and would learn nothing from the FASEA rubbish. But its better for the rest for us who stick it through. Less advisers will mean less access to advice, which will allow us to concentrate on the A clients. Obviusly its horrible for mum and dad clients who are the ones who really need us, but they are getting too hard and expensiveto service anyway due to all the compliance rubbish.
O’Dywer and the big players will get what they want. Restrict advice to the rich and everyone else will be at the mercy of Rabo advice and direct sales agents operating under general advice. The lawyers will hate it though as they cant sue GA advisers as they only provided information.
Just go back to uni for a bit guys. It will suck, be a total waste of time and money and im sure most of us will know more than the lecturer and you will get nothing out of it at first. But then when you can buy the books of exiting advicers and then only concentrate on the A clients you will begin to love the deliberate raping of our profession by vested interests.
Correct, there will be some collateral damage, but overall these changes will be better for the vast majority of stakeholders in the long run.
So at $15K Uni course costs plus 360 hrs course time x $330 / hr, you are resigned to the fact that Over Complicated ODwyer and her FASEA mob will cost you and me over $130K each in wasted time and effort, when FASEA is just more smoke and mirrors to try to defend the indefensible conflicts of vertical integration.
And you think that is OK – well i dont and ill keep fighting for sensible past education recognition.
The AFA are a bunch of grandads looking after a bunch of grandads. Why the heck would they argue for recognised prior learning of a Diploma in Financial Planning??? Pathetic.
Because it is government mandated compulsory education under RG 146 and has been for the past 15 or so years. That’s a heck of a bloody good reason.
And you my friend sound like a fresh faced grad straight out of uni with zero experience or historical understanding.
So what are FPa members then ?
Arrogant O’Dwyer can not and should not be trusted at all, she is a one women wrecking ball to financial advisers. She’s so far given us :
– The most complicated changes to Super in the past 10 years because she didn’t consult industry first.
– LIF based on the now proven tiny problem of adviser churn.
– FASEA is also her making
O’Dwyer will go down as hugely destructive to Financial Advisers.
And also O’Dwyer gave us Corporation Act’s definition of independent (see s.923A), being the most restrictive definition of Independent Advice possible to make her Bank owned adviser buddies look the same as the real IFA’s.
could AFA just shut up and move on and stop complaining. Have not seen so many sales people
So you haven’t seen the FPA then??????
Who? lol
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
The AFA are advocating for their members, as they should
does not matter if they are FPA or AFA, they are simply telling their members that they are doing something for their members, but in fact full of conflict of interest and have no influence whatsoever on what FASEA are doing. FASEA seems only listing to CPA Australia and CAANZ. If anyone has looked at the submissions given by CPAA and CAANA, you would be impressed. Who give a s… about FPA or AFA whey are simply doing sales.