Why? Because four years is all the time that passing the FASEA exam has bought advisers who do not currently hold a degree. Existing advisers with no degree must have an approved degree, or an equivalent qualification at AQF7 level, or another approved qualification, for example, a masters degree, no later than 1 January 2026.
There are huge issues with this approach.
The first is that many established advisers accepted the challenge to sit the FASEA exam, and have since passed, demonstrating that they knew the answer to ambiguous multiple-choice questions that rarely had much to do with the valued work they do for their clients. However, many of these advisers are older, but not old, and see no benefit in enrolling in university to do a degree that will require academic study for the sake of a few more years in the industry; years of pain and red tape.
The second is the assumption that four years is plenty of time. It is not. A FASEA-approved degree, for someone with no existing tertiary qualifications will take, conservatively, three years’ full-time to complete.
What adviser running a business, seeing clients, completing requisite continuing professional development (CPD), trying to have some family and social time, with no real experience of the demands of university-level study will be able to commit to that process, and pass?
I’ll go out on a limb and say next to none of the existing advisers, unless they have already commenced their studies.
Last month, FASEA released a statement congratulating advisers who have, “embraced Parliament’s Corporations Act amendments to raise the education standards of financial advisers”.
The announcement also reiterated a statement that was included in the explanatory memorandum attached to The Corporations Amendment (Professional Standards of Financial Advisers) Bill 2016 (the Bill) that said, “the length of time that the adviser has been in the industry is not itself a relevant consideration.”
We agree with the underlying intent of those comments. CLERP6 and financial services reforms rolled out in 2002 also suggested that length of time was not a good indicator.
However, those 2002 reforms also took the very strong view that competency was a much better indicator – that is, the combination of relevant knowledge, which can be assessed via a written test; skill, which is the practical application of that knowledge in an appropriate and relevant manner, and attitude.
It’s not unlike getting an Australian driver licence. You must pass the driver knowledge test and the hazard perception test, then demonstrate your skills via a practical driving test – unless you already have a driver’s licence from another country, in which case your prior experience means you may only need to pass the driver knowledge test.
The third, and I would argue the most important component of competency is attitude, which includes having the right morals. Just as you can have a skilled and knowledgeable driver who drives recklessly, you can have a skilled and knowledgeable adviser with the wrong attitude.
The solution to this is twofold, first introduce a “Best Interests Duty” like all other professions, which has already occurred, and second get rid of the few “bad apples”, if and when they occur.
But back to FASEA.
The question to ask is, “Why is the exam not enough?”, especially when considering prior learning and experience.
The FASEA website explains that the exam tests the practical application of advisers’ knowledge in the following competency areas:
- Financial advice regulatory and legal requirements (including Corporations Act chapter 7, AML, Privacy and Tax Agents Services Act (TASA) 2009
- Financial advice construction – suitability of advice aligned to different consumer groups, incorporating consumer behaviour and decision-making
- Applied ethical and professional reasoning and communication – incorporating FASEA Code of Ethics and code monitoring bodies
If advisers have passed the FASEA exam, they have therefore by FASEA’s own definition been deemed “competent” in these areas. If they complete their annual 40 hours of CPD, they presumably remain competent. If they also have decades of experience as an adviser successfully servicing their client base, haven’t they also demonstrated that they have the right attitude? In fact, haven’t they even more thoroughly demonstrated actual competency – the successful marriage of skills, knowledge and attitude – than someone who has simply completed tertiary qualifications but has no experience? How then is the length of time they have spent doing just that not a relevant consideration?
I can think of no other profession whereby participants meet the initial and ongoing educational requirements to practise as a professional, but are then required to complete further tertiary education in order to continue to practise. It’s bizarre and arguably discriminatory.
An equally important question to ask is what would the clients of long-serving advisers prefer? A freshly minted graduate with a professional year under their belt, or the competent and experienced adviser they, and often their families, have been dealing with year-on-year?
While a line needs to be drawn in the sand somewhere, perhaps one option is to allow advisers who have passed the FASEA exam, met previous qualification standards and ongoing CPD requirements who are over say, age 55, to be exempt from the requirement to do further tertiary-level study. The risk is low and the benefits for the profession and consumers high.
We must not make it impossible for highly experienced advisers to remain in the industry, just because they can’t or don’t want to complete a degree. Australians need them more than ever. We need them until at least such time as financial advice is recognised as a viable profession, becomes more attractive to new entrants and, most importantly, until those new entrants have time to complete their qualifications, undertake the professional year and gain some experience.
If we don’t, we will see thousands more highly experienced advisers exit en masse on 31 December 2025, and that can only herald a grave new year.
Neil Macdonald, chief executive, The Advisers Association
Accounting remains a “[i]profession[/i]” that [b]STILL [/b]has a [u]minimum education pathway[/u] of a [b]DIPLOMA [/b] (as per s88B or Corporations Act – if you are clever you can follow how this is possible). Likewise, the minimum education pathway for a Registered Tax Agent is also a DIPLOMA (refer to TPB website). Clearly, you do not need a university degree to enter a “profession”. Accounting, like hairdressing, remains an area that is overlooked for regulatory reform.
I believe the key thing here is to lift the standard in the industry and to become a profession like lawyers, and chartered accountants. Financial Advisors want to be seen as professionals yet when compared to lawyers and chartered accountants, becoming a financial advisor is a walk in the park. Until the financial advice industry lifts the minimum standard to a level comparable to other professions the industry will not be respected.
Although I agree with lifting the criteria for advisors I believe this should be a staged approach. Current and future advisors with less than “x” years experience should completed a 3 year degree within the next 5 years (as a minimum). Advisors with more than “x” years experience should still complete a degree but on a part time basis (one paper per semester). Advisors with less than 10 years until retirement (but more than “x” years experience) should not need to complete a degree, however should complete a practical assessment every year until retirement.
This will allow for a transition period while lifting the standards in the industry.
Practical assessment? Isn’t that what CPD is for?
For what its worth I can tell you I know of plenty of older advisers whom arent even beginning the extra tertiary study. They will all be gone in 2026 – done and dusted. Without fail the ones that I know I would absolutely trust my finances with them in terms of advice. Interestingly I know some younger operators and I wouldnt trust them to make a decision about portfolio structuring let alone strategic planning. Nice people but zero clue. Its actually laughable to those of us out in the field as to who will be and wont be providing advice into the future. Beyond scary. But hey who cares ..theyve got their papers. As for me i’m 49 and been a planner since the year 2000. I have lots of study to do and am begrudgingly accepting it based on age and to old to change what I do now for a reasonable living.
I disagree with this. These requirements were put in place a few years ago, so it is nothing new. I understand there are sacrifices for each of us (regardless of age and experience!) to make in order to get the education requirements completed. Trust me I know, I am halfway through and have had to take a couple of months break to have balance back in my life and my young family’s. We need to look towards the future of financial advice. We should be seeing the positive these changes will bring, so we can better help our clients. There ARE things to learn in each unit, you are never to old to learn. I have been in the financial services industry for almost 18 years, yes there were some areas that were a little boring and repetitive, but there were also areas where I did learn something new. Only you can decide what you do next. But for those with a passion on helping clients better their financial situation, embrace the changes!
I don’t agree with the age of the planner being the indicator of who should stay – I’m in my early 40’s with over 20 years experience in the industry, as a paraplanner, compliance manager and adviser and have developed long-standing relationships with my clients. I have two small children which is why I haven’t yet enrolled in further study and I’m not completely sure where I’m supposed to fit the time in, but I’m also not ready to be kicked out of an industry that I’ve given my whole working career to.
It’s not like both major parties haven’t made it very clear that they only want a small number of advisors advising the ultra rich and robots and government websites advising everyone else. This is just one of the planks in the plan. Now, of course as soon as the advisor numbers are low enough, they will backflip and allow product providers to start promoting no advice product sales again.
It’s only an 8 unit grad dip at most, not a three year full time degree as stated by the article…
The answer is somewhat in your comment though. If it’s so simple to do, what is the point of doing it.
Benefits: Maybe learn one or two technical things you didn’t know through the copious amounts of CPD we do each year. Which is much more than the required 40 hours due to needing to complete CPD in specific areas.
Less competition from other advisers as advisers leave industry.
Negatives: Approx $24 – $30K in study cost (If you don’t get discounts).
Time away from family and clients to complete study for several years (If completing whilst working full time).
Study in area’s already proficient or no intent or interest in providing
Stress
Time line to complete or lose license.
Really no evidence to support doing this study actually improves current advice outcomes.
No i don’t agree. Our industry was and is plagued with problems and raising the minimum education standard to that of any other normal profession is the obvious choice. Stop hanging onto the past we must improve this industry to stay relevant.
The issue is at the cost of experience. If anyone thinks the industry will be better off ejecting all that experience in four years I can only think it’s for self-interest. Whilst technical skill is a requirement for advice, anyone thinking this is all financial advice is, is setting the profession up for the next big fall.
Anyone with years of experience and a good track record that has managed to stay licensed under the current regime, should not need to do additional useless study that will only detract from the time they can actually spend helping clients but also add additional cost.
There is absolutely no correlation between ones level of educaton and honesty.
All so true i have a licencee full of older advisers all giving the game away because of this BS!
Advisers over 60 should, having passed the FASEA exam, be grandfathered. They need them to stay, as the low take up of new entrants means Australians will have fewer advisers in a future where advice will be highly sought after. The price, due to compliance, will be prohibitive. Us older advisers will have to step back to practice management and start training a team of new entrants if we can find them and if we have the time. It’s either that or start a robo advice section of our businesses or reinvent ourselves to give general strategic advice. Why do we think this way? Because we actually care about our clients. Can we get a proper statement from whomever as to why they will not consider the experience of advisers over 60 who have passed fasea and met CPD, to continue to operate under a grandfathered arrangement please?
Totally agree Neil. I decided my family and my life needed time and now recovering and enjoying life much more, but I do miss the clients and the life changing positions that I put my clients into over 31 years. Experience is sadly not valued and so much skills will be forever lost. Younger ones won’t see that or agree with me but will also have to one day learn the “you don’t know what you don’t know” .
“You don’t know what you don’t know” is precisely the reason why everyone needs to meet an adequate standard of professional education. There are so many advisers in the industry still who have enormous experience in providing half-baked advice because they can not grasp the complexities involved.
I’m in my early forties and it’s sad to see the exit of experience over what a BS rules that add nothing to the client experience or outcome, except pushing up their cost. How anyone with half a brain thinks anyone is better off for this regime leaves me wondering what sort of client experience their clients would be getting. I’m thinking not a good one.
Neil, I agree from a practical point of view that seeing swathes of people with experience exit the ‘industry’ is a problem. Sorting the good from the bad might be difficult, but I believe the relevant regulator and the Government should allow more scope for these individuals to remain active for longer. However, it can’t be said that their situation isn’t of those existing advisers own making to a large degree.
You make the point well when you say, ‘We need them until at least such time as financial advice is recognised as a viable profession’. The problem is the financial advice is an industry, and only now becoming a profession. Had the same individuals you talk about been more active about professionalising and self-regulating earlier, they would have been afforded more scope to be recognised as people worthy of professional status and all the trust and benefits that go with it. The fact that professionalism has been legislated on group of people says it all. The pendulum was always going to swing hard the other way given where it had been for so long.
The writing on the wall as far back as 2012 or earlier when FOFA was introduced. Plenty of time to work towards a level of education that would meet today’s standards. If not to tick a box, then because it signals that education is an important foundation for any profession.
I am a financial adviser who had to do some extra study. I started in 2018 when we had an idea for the new regime which was seven years ahead of the deadline. I am sympathetic to the many good advisers who may not be able to meet the rigours of a three-year degree to continue practicing between now and 2026. I hope that those people are afforded recognition of their experience toward relevant education so that a balance is found. But there has been plenty of time for them to do something about it, so it can’t be said they didn’t have a choice. Whether, you like it or not is another matter.
The only reason I am still an adviser after AMPFP did me over, with the effective blessing of the AMFPA or as they are now called The Advisers Association is because of this exodus. Supply and Demand is a beautiful thing and whilst it is debatable if having a degree makes you a better adviser something above the current approach where you are basically buying a qualification has been needed for a long time.
Realistically Neil and his cohorts at AMP are a fair part of the problem so this is no different from the FSC telling us how to fix life insurance advice. The exodus will see those feeding off financial planners needing to find a new host and that might be causing Neil some concern at present.
Great work Neil. Currently mid 50’s, career best form but out of here with the masses at the end of 2025.
Practising Public Accountants should be able to give Investment Advice (including property) , as once was the case. They would be like GP’s and refer clients when approptiate.
They can give investment advice is they follow the rules and are licensed. I would trust my cleaner to provide me with investment advice over my accountant. It’s a great tax deduction if it results in a loss seems to be the accountants way of investing.
maybe an extension is warranted due to covid, tack on a couple of year.
It already has been extended, so no.
6 years not enough already? C’mon. People are just being lazy and hoping it goes away.
Or it’s because they aren’t lazy and spend a lot of time actually helping and looking after their clients…..
I give significant time to my clients and as a trainer of other advisers. I have also finished my studies (as a single parent of a child with disabilities, but that part is irrelevant as we all have obligations). There is genuinely no excuse for those who have not started yet.
If all the efforts of writing pieces against the changes were funneled into relevant training, most would be half way through their courses by now. They are focusing on the negatives that will not change rather than getting started.
So well written – logical and sensible. Unfortunately, FASEA has not taken the same path. I too will leave the industry at end 2025. By then 26 years of experience and expertise walks out the door with me. Taking on the equivalent of 7 units while running a business, servicing clients and with ever increasing admin / compliance issues it would just never work. A fine recipe for a heart attack or breakdown just to extend your working life by a few years not to mention what is the quality of Life during that period. I am fortunate that I saw the writing and sold 3 years ago.
I’m 50 years old and have completed 4 subjects within Kaplan for my degree, so halfway. I didn’t think it would be this hard getting back into study, but the time and reading needed on top of running a business is taking its toll – there is no life, work and study. Profits are becoming harder and the scope to employ staff are riskier. I’m in no mans land to young to retire to old to take advantage, but this my job and well respect for. We’re hanging in there. There better be a light at the end of the tunnel and not a freight train as we’ve been hit enough by the small passenger trains?
must be hard getting those High Distinctions. at least four of the subjects i didn’t even read any of the materials I just jumped straight into the assignments and lost a day. All up the entire course took me about 5-10 days over two years.
Well said Neil. I completed a Securites Institute course in the early 90’s, went on to do Diploma of FP, became a CFP then completed an MBA and became a SMSF specialist (plus many other side courses)….oh and of course, have completed the FASEA exam. I’ve completed CPD for 31 years and run what some may consider a successful practice, having won Practice of the year 3 times with different Licensee’s. I’ve got a clean compliance record and as a practice, we survey our clients every few years through Business Health and our results are great and always improve. With all that I still have to do a couple of subjects……i can and will get them done, but really!!!!
Too right. I’m 59, have 25 years experience, have a MEc, DipFP, am a CFP and SSA and have passed the FASEA exam. Now I have to do the one Masters level subject, FASEA’s Bridging Course – Ethics and Professionalism which will cost a lot of time, effort and about $3-4,000 I imagine. I really can’t see it adding any benefit above the study I did for the FASEA exam and therefore can’t really see the need. If I was a couple of years older I wouldn’t bother. What an exercise in futility this is. No amount of education will ever make a criminal suddenly become honest.
Why only over age 55? There are many advisers under this age (myself included) that have been in the industry for 10 plus years. I would argue those over 55 don’t have a family to look after, so would have greater time on their hands to commit to study. Those under age 55 are more likely to be juggling young family demands. Why put an age on it?
I’m quite sure the reason would be self-interest.
Because there would need to be an arbitrary cut off… if you are over 55 heading towards retirement at say 65 this means on average your advisers over 55 would possibly be 60…add a 4 year degree to their requirements and hooray they get to graduate in the last 12 months of their career…make sense now?
I have my quals but if I didn’t I wouldn’t have time for a degree, run my business and my children. I am 53. Two other advisers in my group are early 60’s and they said they are both exiting when the education requirements come in. You are right Neil. BUT its too late now for this to change. You can’t mandate something and then say ooopsie I made a mistake when other advisers have paid for and doing/done their education requirement. So what you are saying is all academic to me. Nice to acknowledge the advisers that have more experience and through this alone know more than the 20-25 year olds who are educated but haven’t a clue and wouldn’t attract wealthy clients as a result. I feel sad for the clients who are not wealthy and those of us left can’t look after them because it takes too many hours of compliance that they cannot afford.
I’m 57 with over 30 years experience and I’ve already completed 4 of the 6 GradDip units and will be finished by mid-2022, so as you can imagine I’d be more than a little irked if I then found out that this was all an unnecessary cost and distraction from running my practice.
Neil, I agree from a practical point of view that seeing swathes of people with experience exit the ‘industry’ is a problem. Sorting the good from the bad might be difficult, but I believe the relevant regulator and the Government should allow more scope for these individuals to remain active for longer. However, it can’t be said that their situation isn’t of those existing advisers own making to a large degree.
You make the point well when you say, ‘We need them until at least such time as financial advice is recognised as a viable profession’. The problem is the financial advice is an industry, and only now becoming a profession. Had the same individuals you talk about been more active about professionalising and self-regulating earlier, they would have been afforded more scope to be recognised as people worthy of professional status and all the trust and benefits that go with it. The fact that professionalism has been legislated on group of people says it all. The pendulum was always going to swing hard the other way given where it had been for so long.
The writing on the wall as far back as 2012 or earlier when FOFA was introduced. Plenty of time to work towards a level of education that would meet today’s standards. If not to tick a box, then because it signals that education is an important foundation for any profession.
I am a financial adviser who had to do some extra study. I started in 2018 when we had an idea for the new regime which was seven years ahead of the deadline. I am sympathetic to the many good advisers who may not be able to meet the rigours of a three-year degree to continue practicing between now and 2026. I hope that those people are afforded recognition of their experience toward relevant education so that a balance is found. But there has been plenty of time for them to do something about it, so it can’t be said they didn’t have a choice. Whether, you like it or not is another matter.
Spot on Neil!! Well explained..someone who isnt in the industry would clearly understand that and would be shocked at how silly this is…! Why is it the FPA and the AFA can’t get that point across to the law makers and CHANGE the rules inline with what you have suggested ? After all, it was the big end of town (who actually got away with it) hwo robbed people blond on a massive scale, which painted the rest of us with a bad brush as a result of the RC, and now turned our lives up side down and s distroying our current and future businesses.
Exactly right. I’m one of those advisers that is leaving, but not because I want to. I’m 56 now and have been an adviser for 3 decades. I have done numerous courses, CPD hours every year beyond the required amount and never had a complaint, but as I don’t have a relevant degree, I’m apparently no good. I explain the situation to my clients and they just scratch their heads and say it’s absolutely mad. Some younger existing advisers will say, too bad, get over it and more clients for them, but that misses the point that there are already thousands of people who can’t get advice, so how does any of this help people?
There is a very big difference between someone who doesn’t have a relevant degree and someone who can’t be bothered obtaining one.
Well said Neil, I only have one gripe. These advisers that you talk about didn’t have 4 years, they were told by FASEA in 2018, which is long enough to do a part-time degree.
Some of the cohort of advisers who didn’t have a degree got in and started one, others decided January 2026 was a good time to retire. Those who thought that the situation might change, or weren’t organised, don’t deserve sympathy or extensions.
I agree with your premise, but the time for raising it was 2018. The rules are what they are, and we all need to get on board as a profession and deal with it.
I would think that for any adviser not prepared to complete tertiary studies, they use the next 4 years to develop a succession plan so their skills, knowledge and client relationships can be passed on.
Very prescient, accurate and well written article by Neil Macdonald. I’d expect nothing less from him. I knew Neil in his past life as a BDM and he’s always been 100% on the ball and professional. The arguments he puts here are completely in line with the common sense that politicians can’t muster. There simply has to be another agenda at work here by pollies as the way this is going for advisers it just cannot be politicians not understanding things.
The sad thing is those reading this article are the converted. Those who REALLY need to digest it are the pollies and will never read it. We need [i]good wordsmiths and strategic thinkers like Neil [/i]and similar luminaries to be screaming this into the face of pollies and on nightly news. I truly fear that anything less is just contemplating out collective navels and won’t make any difference. Sadly, as each day passes, it becomes clearer to me that other forces and influences are at work moving politicians into this reprehensible mode of clearing out advisers from our once-great industry. It can be the only answer as [b]politicians [/b]cannot be as [b]tone deaf [/b]as they are demonstrating themselves to be. Politicians HAVE to be acting for some ‘other’ purpose and that purpose is in direct opposition to client (AND adviser) best interest.
I have no doubt the fabled ‘big end of town’ is involved in this adviser extinction, no doubt about it and God knows what the pollies are getting in return. One can of course hypothesise but that’s getting off the point. The hypocrisy of it all drives me insane. I will be retired going into the new year, at least 10 years too early than anticipated after 26 years protecting clients with risk advice. I’ve sold my business for all the very reasons Neil outlines. Good luck to all of you brave (or stuck? . . . or foolish?) enough to stay. The very best to all who choose to [i]battle [/i][b][/b]on.
I’ll be leaving and it’s not because of education, it’s because i enjoy helping people and using my skills to solve their financial problems. You can’t do that anymore.
There is a group of advisers with no educational qualifications at all and just sat the FASEA exam to prove a point. Having done that they’ll exit closer to the date. So agree with the author. However having just completed a Master’s these are essentially lazy (insert expletive). A Graduate Diploma is 8 subjects and one was compulsory and it comes with an exemption and the remaining subjects (that’s 6) I myself didn’t actually read the material, sat 100% of the exams without studying or reading the materials, but spent at least a weekend a subject doing the assignments and still passed. It was a tax and others did the crime so i did the time. After doing all that i’ll be leaving anyway.
Each subject takes about 3 months. There are, for existing advisers, 8 subjects at most (there are 12 subjects for new entrants).
It does not take 3 year to complete. I am fortunate in my case that I have a few RPLs (recognition of prior learning), and I am currently doing my penultimate subject – I should have the qualification by June next year.
Well said Neil. Spot on.
Brilliant Neil. Twenty years ago I had to travel from Torquay to Melbourne for over two years to complete an Advanced Diploma and that was after 27 years of experience! Now I am told that after a further 21 years, I am not qualified to give advice. It is truly offensive and insulting to me and those with similar experience. Perhaps a new degree for all politicians majoring in common sense, fairness and ethics is the answer. This would get rid of most of them!!
Think you’re over estimating their abilities… 😉
To say they only have had four years to get the degree while running a business is incorrect. The education reforms were released in plenty of time for people to get their degree. It’s time to move on from this argument and embrace a step towards true professionalism. Get with the program or get out
Agree with you – when the education reforms were discussed years and years ago no one objected. Since them the FASEA exam has been watered down, pared back, extended and everything else possible to dumb it down and yet adviser are bleating.
Now the whingeing starts about the degree.
Well if we want to be as respected as other professions like lawyers, accountants etc , the degree is a must. I fact the diploma requirement are not as onerous as other professions have to do.
S lets get on with it.
True professionals are not treated like children…so not sure what professionalism you are referring to.
I agree with everything except the length of time to complete the degree, it may take 3-4 years but advisers have known about this for 2-3 years already – sitting on your hands won’t get it done – you’ve got to weigh up the cast benefit and then just dive in or tap out.
We’ve known about the requirement since the start of FASEA. Then FASEA couldn’t get organised and stuffed around for almost three years…and now they are disbanded (in a few weeks) so it’s no wonder advisers in the 55 plus age group are holding out for a miracle…
To be fair the writing has been on the wall for many more years. I undertook study in 2013 because I knew it had a fair chance of being a requirement. I agree though, the exodus will be massive, and with that a lot of very good and well experienced Financial Advisers will be gone. This will add to the pressure of students leaving uni to find somewhere to do a professional year.
Well – massive congratulations to you.
Well said Neil
I am 60 and been an adviser for over 25 years and a CFP for 20 of those. I have close and valued relationships with many aging clients who will need me in their twilight years . I have completed everything asked of me to date ie DFP, CPD FASEA exam, no breaches/complaints etc etc. However, I still need to complete six (yes 6) subjects to be “worthy” to remain in the profession. That’s not happening as I value my personal time and the time needed to look after my existing clients too much. Add me to the statistics of those reluctantly leaving on 31st December 2025
so you had 25 years to complete 6 yes six subjects. Six subject that are literally a walk in the park.
The requirement for the 6 subjects didn’t existing until recently. A Bachelor of Financial Planning Degree didn’t exist until recently.
You have just described me also. Add me to those exiting stats. Such a shame.
How well said is that – I am one such adviser who will not want to leave the industry good health permitting but will have to start planning my exit in the next two years – some reassurance that this will not be necessary would be a welcome message from the regulators that the clients interest is being considered and acknowledgement given to those who have created the very valuable advise industry we have today
I’m not as patient or as brave as you Malcolm. I’m 60 and exiting now. I was going to do the FARCE of an exam (and it [b]IS[/b] an absolute nonsensical and irrelevant FARCE -[i] the pollies even admit to this when the microphone is off![/i]) but read on to discover why I’m not. I’m out while the getting is moderately good. Didn’t want to do so but the time to study for these wholly unnecessary ‘degrees’ as a simple risk writer is beyond ridiculous and immoral for someone who has loyalty and honestly served client very well for over 30 years. These self-interested legislators forcing experienced advisers away from their clients and the once-great industry they [i](used to)[/i] love should be ashamed of themselves and be re-deployed by their minders into a job where their judgement is not a required part of the job description.
May as well force GPs to do the degrees required of brain surgeons or navy captains for all the relevance and sense it makes forcing risk advisers to do investment adviser degrees. [b]Totally different disciplines and skill sets[/b]. Ridiculous on all levels. Oh and good luck to you brave enough to risk the ‘other’ unknown changes coming down the line toward 2025.
You know, don’t you, there [b]will [/b]be more irrelevant and disruptive changes as there’s not a month goes by without these ‘legislators’ or pollies wanting to demonstrate their relevance to their superiors and voters. Yes, there’ll be many more ‘changes’ and advisers won’t be winning the prize when they’re enacted. Like FARCE-IA, they’ll be targeted to give pollies maximum time in the sun, best soundbites and best chance of re-election. Ramifications down the line be damned, just like the changes since FOFA/LIF – nothing new. Remember, Top End Of Town wants free-spirited and independent advisers [b]GONE[/b]. Follow the money . . . they usually get what they want. [i]Count on it.[/i]
Who will look after my clients now if I can’t find a buyer for my business? All the good experienced potential buyers I( know are leaving like I am leaving. Why would they possibly stay, it makes no sense on any level. All of us have at least another 10 years in us! Oh yes, a freshly minted 22 year old graduate with no life experience but a bit of paper in hand? Who will be left to train him/her up over the next 5-10 years? Nobody, that who. Client best interest? Ha! Government wouldn’t know it if it bit them on the face! Self absorbed hypocrites all.
You could not be more spot-on if you tried, Neil. FASEA was given a brief to “recognise prior experience”, yet, to my knowledge, not a single industry participant has been given credit for ANYTHING over than formal education. As it stands, I’ll be amongst the cohort reaching for the exit door handle on New Year’s Eve, 2025 even though I have no wish to, and my clients would all prefer I wasn’t.
Agreed Neil. The other elephant in the room is the fact that the average age of financial advisers is plus 50 which will see a large cohort retire within 10 years.
Thank You Neil. Someone who has thought it through.