That’s according to AIOFP executive director Peter Johnston, who, together with financial advisers, met with seven Coalition politicians in Canberra this week to explain the issues with implementing new educational requirements for financial advisers.
Mr Johnston told ifa there are more than 1,500 financial advisers including their support staff living in the seat of Wentworth. He noted that following the loss of the constituency at Saturday’s byelection, Coalition MPs have grown fearful of losing their seats at the next federal election.
“We had a better than expected meeting with seven Coalition politicians at Parliament House on Monday,” Mr Johnston said.
“We had just over 60 minutes to put our case forward to Minister Stuart Robert, Minister Kelly O’Dywer, Whip Nola Merino MP, Craig Kelly MP, Bert van Manen MP, Tim Wilson MP and Alan Tudge MP.”
Mr Johnston said six financial advisers were also present at the meeting in Canberra this week.
“Our chair, Dr Adrian Raftery, did a great job explaining the logistical problems with delivering the education demands from the universities perspective,” he said.
“Advisers Phil Windsor and Colin Benvenuto and manufacturer Matt Johnson spoke about the unfair demands on advisers.”
The AIOFP leader said he made the Coalition aware of the negative political ramifications and reputational damage the government that the FASEA reforms could trigger.
“The message from the minister and back benchers was that the original FASEA proposal will be mitigated and adjusted significantly. That’s the impression we got,” Mr Johnston said.
“Based on direct feedback from the committee and the positive support we received from the group, we feel FASEA will be greatly mitigating the legislative instruments [LI] due to be released next month.”
The committee has asked the AIOFP to provide direct and immediate feedback on the LIs, which will outline the terms and conditions of the FASEA reforms.
“Our message to all advisers is please wait until the LIs are released before making any medium- to long-term plans with your career and practice. The escape from this nightmare is going in the right direction. Putting pressure on your local federal member would also be a great idea,” Mr Johnston said.
The market has four weeks to respond to LIs once they are released.
[quote=Anonymous]Correct. Raising the bar is what is needed. So many planners are great at their job and add value… Unfortunately, there is enough dead wood to more than counter the good planners. The old DFP only “but I am experienced” doesn’t cut it, nor should it. The 30 year+ advisers are generally the worst ones I know, still stuck in the old sales culture and always fighting change.[/quote]
I do agree with raising the bar, but I wouldn’t be discounting the experience of the those old school advisers, there is something special about them in how they connect with clients. They know how to simplify things when speaking to clients. I work at a big 4 bank and we run regular workshops where those old school advisers share their insights with us new school advisers.
CHECK THIS ARTICLE AND COMMENT – accountants dismissing financial advisers as an advice profession:
https://www.accountantsdaily.com.au/business/12268-clients-compromised-amid-education-reforms-for-accountants
The Liberal Govt have been an abysmal disgrace in relation to advisers.
From Josh Frydenburg, Kelly O’Dwyer and Malcolm in the Middle who didn’t have the capacity to be a decisive leader in a free market economy and who repetitively stated that small business was the backbone of the country. Even prior to the RC they totally abandoned Financial Advisers who own and run successful small businesses across the country and supported and approved legislation that punished everyone for the behaviour of a very small percentage.
This is the problem……to make everyone pay a price for those few who have wronged because that is good political mileage and shows the public that the Govt are protecting them from the nasty people.
How pathetic it has been and even how more pathetic the Liberal behaviour has been of late.
Selfish and absorbed, ego driven power struggles.
For Kelly O’Dwyer to have supported the LIF legislation and siding with her buddy Sally Loane from the FSC when in fact she previously had accepted political donations from the FSC was bordering on corrupt.
The Liberals have to get on board now or feel the wrath of further backlash.
In the lead up to the forthcoming federal election, will Kelly O’Dwyer be accepting further political donations from the FSC made directly to her Higgins Electorate Conference as she did on 23/08/2013 and 26/06/2012 ?? …….probably wont happen as she is no longer Minister for Revenue and Financial Services !
I hope she gets a belting in her electorate just like the Libs did in Wentworth. Couldn’t be more deserving.
Thank you Peter Johnston! At least someone is doing something about this crap- unlike the other leeches
Yes thanks Peter and the AIOFP.
If for one second the powers in Canberra think Absolute Idiots Out For Profit represent us we are all f#*&%$. Only place you would find more corrupt Chairs is around a prison table.
I think a bit of common sense would go a long way. Why not scrap the exam for existing advisers then have 3 – 4 subjects on topics they are concerned about for existing advisers to complete one of which will cover what would be in the exam.
To the pathetic, gutless trolls out there, if you want to sit back and let the other institutionally aligned Associations represent you in Canberra go for it…the ramifications of this are very clear with FOFA/LIF/FASEA issues against Advisers. To the others, just keep an open mind, in time we will articulate the second phase of our political strategy that will tackle a more than likely incoming Shorten Government.
Good on you Peter. At least you and your colleagues are having a go.
Yeah you just have no credibility though
Do you think you have any credibility with cheap throw away lines like that posting anon? Go back under the rock, keep your negativity for your clients, if you have any.
Thank you
I have many very happy clients and have a very simple business and don’t mix with people who are crooks
Have a nice day
Like I said previously, if part of your cunning plan is to get concessions out a Shorten Labor govt, then you’ve got rocks in your head. Or you’re just selling unrealistic expectations to gullible planners in the hope of building numbers for your piddly association. Either way it’s not a good look. But then you were a booster for Astarra so anything is possible….
Its a lot better than sitting on your arse throwing pot shots. This is why we are so weak, white ants like you are everywhere. You guys are pathetic! Get off yourselves.
Peter, I dont necessarily disagree with FASEA, meaning I dont exactly agree with you, however, well done on actually doing something for the industry. I wish our other “associations” actually did something like this instead of being a huge part of the problem. I can appreciate the effort.
They should just take the FPA approach…”Let’s just wait and see what the final legislation produces” then follow up with a “It’s legislation now get on with it”
The reality is this is too little too late. We have expressed our concerns – many times – and the government has not listened. They lose a sit, with the possibility of losing the next election and suddenly they change their tune…Add to this the NBN issues many small FP offices are having…It’s unlikely that many FP’s and staff will vote for the major parties in the next election…
Hi all… I’m 26 and I just finished a double degree in Commerce and Finance with a Masters of Economics. I’ve spent some years talking to people in an accounting firm about their SMSF, giving them some share tips on a scrappy piece of paper and I really enjoyed selling them property funds for a 20% upfront commission as required by the senior partner. However I want out of this environment and so I was thinking of becoming a Financial Planner and buy a business and pay 4 times recurring revenue to some old fart.
but I’ve since learned, as a new entrant I’ve now got to go back and complete a whole new Degree (I’ll get some exemptions) or at least get a Graduate Diploma. Is this correct? I’m thinking I won’t become a planner now and stick to accounting.
Are you serious or making fun of those who have a degree and obviously no ethics? You are joking right…?
You left documentary evidence of your SMSF share tips!! Clearly you are unsuited to being an accountant.
My view is that we need to lift the entry level considerably. We also need CPD to be relevant and harder to obtain a pass – if you have the knowledge, of course it will be easy; I don’t mean “in the article” type questions which have sometimes been out of date and therefore technically wrong nor double negative questions that only test grammar.
With aging advisers leaving the industry anyway, it would be easy to have education graduated such that experience is lifted in priority and exams reduced accordingly. For example, if an adviser has 20yrs experience and has the 8 subject DFP or higher relevant qualification (law doesn’t cut it), then just leave it at the national exam and make that exam practical knowledge based, not academic BS. Those without the experience or minimum tested knowledge, have to complete a grad diploma.
The proposed exam with only a small amount of practical knowledge testing and large amount of BS (corps act/behavioural finance/ethics) is not real world. Put reduced emphasis on the BS and increase client focused knowledge. Then I will support the government rep who implements this… until then, no vote for Lib or Lab. Sorry, Stuart Robert, I am in your electorate… you don’t have my vote at this time.
why would any right thinking person be voting for Stuart Robert, irrespective of his views or actions on the FASEA issue? I wouldnt vote for this grub even if he promised to repeal FASEA and FOFA.
I am embarrassed that as an industry we are trying to water down the journey to a professional. Exactly what happened with FOFA and look at where it got us. If you don’t want to be a professional (which involves STUDY) then stop complaining and get off the bus now!
And if you have already done bucket loads of study – why get made to do it again ?
look out in the big wide world and recognise that there is no love at present for financial planning. There will be no watering down. You either need to get with the program or get out, its that simple. People need to stop whining about the things that they cant control and start focusing on the things that are within their ability to change. It’s the things we tell clients to do, why are we so bad at taking our own advice?
Spoken like someone who just completed a Degree…not only a Degree but the [i]right[/i] degree at the [i]right[/i] institution. Sadly much needed financial planning skills like empathy, understanding, sympathy, the ability to walk in the clients shoes do not get taught within Intro to Super 101. Even someone like myself who currently should meet FASEA requirements can appreciate just how much we’ve been screwed..
And so what if he/she did? If someone completed a degree in the time that everyone else was just complaining it was too hard or there wouldnt be enough time thats great.
I didnt want to do it, but when these education requirements became extremely clear, I just got on with it and enrolled. Welcome to being a professional.
Having ‘ empathy, understanding, sympathy, the ability to walk in the clients shoes’ will make you a successful financial planner.
Having higher education requirements and barriers to entry is intended to weed out the dangerous ones.
I dont much like lawyers at the moment so should we make those with less than ten year degrees go back and get a relevant qualification after all the laws do change quite regularly,,,,
Or if you live in a regional area and studied at a Regional University a just completed a double degree in Bachelor of Commerce and Finance you have to go back an do a Bachelor of Financial Planning or a Graduate Diploma in FP. I’m sure you’d say screw that I’ll work in an accounting firm.
Suggest you read the comment below re FASEA farce. Stop thinking about yourself .We spend more money on education each year and the NAPLAN results are worse . Typical achedemia !!!You cant get a degree in honesty or ethics that will guarantee no crooks . A fast ,efficient,pro active and sensible ASIC is the answer going forward , not a 5 hour EXAM .
Totally agree, what many don’t realise, is by constantly watering things down we are only setting ourselves up for more hardship in the future, with more political pressure and additional compliance. The easy answer is to do the study, if we do, our future path will be so much easier.
So say on average the last 15 years of study and cpd that planners have done and paid for was worth nothing??
Well I think we can all agree the CPD isnt worth much. Jump on kaplan ontrack for an hour per year and attend some free boozy lunches to “continue learning”.
If the study was only a diploma of financial planning, really isnt worth much either. Degrees need to be recognised though.
Ouch! Dam that truth…
Yep spot on Reality, private study is worthless education…just like some dodgy CFP course from some dodgy private firm adverting it’s world class.
Wow – that’s a lot of professions you made a statement about.
If you, yourself, already possess adequate qualifications to back the level of advice you provide, demonstrate a high fiduciary duty and are respected and trusted by your clients, then you are already a professional and seen as such by your clients. We see on these forums time and time again “advisers” commenting about those less qualified or the industry as a whole being unprofessional, when it has absolutely no bearing on themselves, their businesses or their clients. At the end of the day your client is your judge and jury! There are many already “professionally” qualified doctors, accountants and lawyers that do not act professionally or demonstrate sound fiduciary duty to their patients or clients. Those individuals are ultimately weeded out by their clients or relevant regulators, which needs to be more the case in financial services.
Be embarrassed idiot. Try buying a business, having studied what was available at the time including Masters in FP, 25+ years experience to be told you have to study more and pass an exam. You belong under the bus
By George – Yes the FASEA farce / nightmare continues.
Whilst my B.Economics (double major in economics and business law) seems to now be accepted as related degree. Then nothing else of my education or experience counts for anything.
– Full 8 subject DFP = nothing
– SMSF Specialist course and SMSFA certification = nothing
– Estate Planning Specialist Adviser course = nothing
– 20 years experience = nothing
– 20 years CPD = nothing
– 13 years Responsible Manager AFSL = nothing.
So supposedly I’m no longer qualified to do my job.
Thus back to uni FASEA want to send me for 3 courses.
At say $5k per course = $15,000
Then 120 hours x 3 x $330 per hour = $119,000
Plus an exam to study and sit = how much more time and costs ?
[b]So to keep my job it will cost me at least $150,000[/b]
What an absolute joke FASEA are, the utter arrogance to disregard very well educated and experienced Adviser past hard work, time and effort is a disgrace.
I am in the same boat as you and I have a Masters Degree in Financial Planning, plus a non-related grad dip and a diploma in financial services.
You’ve posted this crap previously. If you are as good as you keep saying you are, with all your experience and qualifications, why is it going to take you so long to do all that study? This should be a walk in the park for one such as you, a gift, a snack, a lay-down misere…..why so much concern oh educated one??
FASEA say 120 hrs per course. So that’s the time.
So those at FASEA are idiots and you rail against everything they say, but when it suits your narrative you’ll back them on the 120 hours number….right
Sure Jimmy you legend, you’ll study it in 2 hrs……..right. So how long will it take Jimmy ?
My lord. What ignorance. Study is study, assignments are assignments, and exams are exams. When you spend thousands of dollars, you don’t just walk up and ‘assume’ you get through it. You put in the grind to ensure you conform to the institutions ‘version’ of whatever it is your studying.
Agreed. This will affect the next generation down too, not just the ‘ageing’ advisers.
There are those of us with a mortgage, and young children who have already completed considerable additional study under previously accepted standards.
Now the rules change. Who has the time and money, and is it worth it? Since we’re getting burnt re: study the first time around, who is to say we won’t get burnt a second time too?
[i]Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.[/i]
Why not study outside of business hours and that will save you $119,000 for a start. Also most courses are about $3.3k each so you can trim a bit there too. Notwithstanding deductions for learning costs based on earning an income.
Clearly you have zero understanding of economic costs, if i study outside business hours it’s still wasted valuable time i could be either working and getting $ or spending time with my family.
What George, you have to be across the entire Corps Act to be considered a competent planner ?
There are also incompetent planners and advisers who are qualified to the hilt.
There are also highly qualified planners and advisers who are unethical or have the propensity to be unethical.
There are planners and advisers who are fee for service only who over service to generate income and there are ethical and competent planners and advisers who are remunerated via commission who deliver great levels of service and assistance to their clients.
So, passing an exam does not make you competent…it tests your knowledge of subject matter at a snapshot in time.
Experience, knowledge , empathy , ethics and communication skills makes you competent because a good adviser is one who can communicate complex information and strategy in a form and level of understanding which allows their client to make informed decisions.
I typically vote Liberal and I’m in Wentworth. I didn’t vote for Liberal this time in the by-election. The Liberal Party need to be punished for everything that has gone on. You will be decimated at the next election and [b]ITS TIME[/b] to listen to the Australian people.
Our friends the Mortgage Brokers and Financial Planners offer excellent support to our clients and we are being punished from work of bank CEOs.
[b]Reverse LIF.[/b] Review education standards with the long-term view to lift them over time.
The Liberal Party need to get out of their bubble. I don’t want Labor to win the next election. If you want my support get your A$$ into gear. I want results and answers now.
I’ve heard the AIOFP are launching a campaign against the Liberal Party. People Power. Just look at the people protesting with the Unions this week in Melbourne. People are now getting a voice. Watch out Liberal Party…
So you want to “punish” the Liberal Party and perhaps that helps you to get over your anger.
But by doing that you and others are potentially going to punish a lot of other Australians who do not want a Shorten government, which is very understandable.
Be very careful what you wish for because I suspect Labour and the unions will have very little sympathy for the financial services industry and will come down even harder on it.
Johnston has got rocks in his head if he thinks that there’s any political capital in making things easier for financial planners. With the crap that was exposed via the RC there is no way that they will water down the educational requirements currently on the table.
Even if they did, expect Labor to reverse them after they win at the next election. We can also expect more changes that will impact us negatively when Labor come in and look to push all people towards Union Funds.
The crap exposed at the RC was the actions of highly educated and over paid executives. Its time the planners were given a break at being the fall guys for every wrong doing of others
I am sick of people on here saying that everything is the fault of overpaid executives. FFS that is only an element of it
Yeah, as an element it’s the cause mate!
Calling the FASEA educational requirements a nightmare is a bit of an exaggeration. Although, it WILL be a nightmare for incompetent financial planners.
or older advisers who would qualify just in time to retire .
So no issue then.
Why do (i presume younger) “Professional” Planner assume the current education standards being proposed will be the end of it?
Because it’s likely to rid the industry of those ticket clippers who shouldn’t be here. The barrier to entry will then be sufficiently high enough to maintain the quality such that further changes to education won’t be needed. Or do u think we’ll move to Kid’s as a minimum??
Correct. Raising the bar is what is needed. So many planners are great at their job and add value… Unfortunately, there is enough dead wood to more than counter the good planners. The old DFP only “but I am experienced” doesn’t cut it, nor should it. The 30 year+ advisers are generally the worst ones I know, still stuck in the old sales culture and always fighting change.
The Industry Funds are “clipping the ticket” all day long. I can not see how education will change that in Industry Land or Retail Land. I was under the impression the improved Education was to great a Profession – that way we will not be conflicted??? I will be staying and I can tell you one thing you can not dispute – we will all be charging clients much much more than we have in the past – so a good result don’t you think?
Tell me, do you receive absolutely ZERO clip of the ticket? Think about it before you answer.
You are aware no new business is written by Financial Planners with Commission? Is there an issue with Commission – apparently for Financial planner – but my Mortgage broker has no problem receiving payment from “The Banks” etc – even for double gearing into residential property.
George, I suggest you actually read Consultation Papers 1 – 7 in their entirety before you comment. FASEA have given no ‘credit’ for those who have relevant financial planning qualifications such as ADFP, the FPAs DFP or designations obtained via coursework at AQF9 equivalent (e.g. CFP). Further, those with a commerce or business degree are ignored by FASEA, whereas a Law degree is deemed more “relevant” than commerce or business. This is just a couple of examples of how FASEA have got the “how” wrong, whereas most of the industry agree we need to move to the “what” (aka higher education standards).
Jason, I think you’ll find that it depends what you’ve done within your degree that will count as opposed to the name of the degree on the piece of paper.