As an alternative to satisfying FASEA’s existing education requirements by 1 January 2026, the SMSF Association has proposed that advisers with 10 or more years of full-time experiences in the last 12 years, be given the option of demonstrating they have the “necessary core and individual competencies” to provide advice.
In its submission to government, the organisation argued that this model should be available to advisers on the Financial Advisers Register with at least 10 out of 12 years’ experience as of 1 January 2019, who are unable to demonstrate recognition of prior learning from prior tertiary studies.
“Years of service or the number of years on a register alone are not an appropriate measure of skill, knowledge, or capability,” said John Maroney, chief executive of the SMSF Association.
“An alternative model is needed to allow experienced advisers to have their competencies assessed or allow education providers to use existing recognition of prior learning frameworks.”
Mr Maroney argued that the current education standards place everyone in the same box.
“The industry has a number of different types of ‘advisers’, including those who provide limited advice service, such as risk, superannuation, self-managed superannuation, or stock broking,” Mr Maroney explained.
“The education needs of each cohort are niche and considerably different, whereas the current model seeks to shoehorn all industry participants into a single cohort model that is not fit for purpose.
“We support the model proposed by the Financial Planning Association, acknowledging the possible addition of SMSF Advice as a separate and distinct individual competence and that, as proposed, it would apply to advisers providing full financial advice services. It provides a clear framework and model on which to build those needed for other industry participants.”
Mr Maroney also argued that advisers that have had their international degrees assessed by FASEA, should have the opportunity to elect to complete their education pathway under the pathway approved under FASEA or apply for RPL with an education provider.
Moreover, the CEO noted that while the SMSF Association supports and encourages further education and specialisation, “we do not support changing the Professional Year (PY) standard to require additional graduate certificate or diploma level education be undertaken”.
“Whilst we support measures that require or encourage specialisation, the PY program is not the appropriate point in time. This cohort already needs to be degree qualified and is required to prepare for and sit the prescribed financial adviser exam,” Mr Maroney said.
“Further study can be undertaken as part of the ‘advisers’ ongoing development and professional accreditation, in line with their chosen career.”
There is a growing divide between the proposed education standards and allowing for an experience pathway. I would venture to suggest that the divide is extremely age based. I have been in this industry for 30 plus years and work/mentor younger advisers in our office. They are both technically astute and would satisfy all of the compliance requirements. However, in saying that, their relationship skills are in need of improvement. This industry is all about relationship first and foremost. When we finally get to a transaction based of business, my day is done.
I love what I do and am passionate about the improvement we can make to clients lives. There just has to be the relationship as the enabler for that to happen.
Please take experience into consideration.
It can’t be learned, it must be earned.
Booooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!
This proposal, like the FPAs, is a waste of time. “Competency assessment” will be too hard to implement in practice, and won’t easily integrate with the existing FASEA framework. The government needs options for minor fixes to the current FASEA model. They don’t want to start again with a new model.
The AFA’s suggestion of allowing older advisers to fulfil their requirements by completing Graduate Certificates with some exemptions, rather than full whack FASEA, is more sensible and workable. It ensures a minimum standard of degree level education for everyone in the profession, while providing greater recognition for the significant education older advisers would have inevitably done through less formal means throughout their careers. (BTW I am neither an AFA member, nor old!)
yep….. this is getting embarrassing now.
No doubt motivated by the cohort of accountants who can’t meet the standard. The standard us the standard: Get on with it and stop trying to weasel your way out of it.
There is a much easier solution for accountants. Just cancel your AR and go back to giving unlicensed advice like most accountants continued to do anyway with zero attention from regulators. No need to worry about education standards, law & ethics exam, best interest duty, client disclosure documents, conflicts of interest, ASIC, AFCA, Austrac, or FSCP.
This is exactly what most Accountants have done. Mad if they don’t.
ASIC has NEVER busted 1 single Accountant for given Illegal AFSL Advice with zero AFSL compliance.
Not 1 busted, so why would Accountants bother with the Adviser BS Regs, Mass over compliance, Mass over Regulators like ASIC, AFCA, etc.