FPA Questions Advice Given to FASEA

The FPA has questioned the guidance provided to FASEA in rejecting study related to the CFP designation while accepting unrelated qualifications under the new proposed education standards.

FPA Chair, Neil Kendall

The Association has asked its members for feedback on the new proposals and reported that it received 1,700 responses in the first 24 hours.

The FPA stated it remains concerned the FASEA proposals were ‘over-engineered’ and reduce the access to advice for consumers, and member feedback had confirmed this concern.

FPA Chair, Neil Kendall the financial planning sector had spent 20 years building ‘a culture of learning’ among practitioners and the proposed FASEA standards, including a refusal to acknowledge study completed for advance diploma and the CFP designation, would undermined that culture.

“Our members are outraged and in disbelief that FASEA can ignore the financial planning specific study done in the CFP program yet recognise a law degree as a relevant financial planning qualification,” Kendall said.

“It is clear that the FASEA board have not been getting the right guidance on education standards“

“A financial planner with a Business Degree, eight subjects in the Advanced Diploma, and five Masters level subjects in the CFP program is treated as unqualified in the latest FASEA proposal, but an existing planner with a law degree only has to complete a non-technical bridging course to meet the standard,” he added.

“It is clear that the FASEA board have not been getting the right guidance on education standards,” Kendall said, adding the new proposals seem to overlook the requirement for every adviser to pass an exam, which would act as a failsafe in picking up anyone without appropriate knowledge.

“There is broad acceptance that those without university degrees need to undertake further professional study, but those with degrees and further financial planning specific study are aghast at being told by FASEA they are essentially unqualified,” Kendall said.

The FPA stated it had asked FASEA for clarification on the new proposals but had yet to receive a response and, while welcoming the appointment of Dr Mark Brimble as acting Managing Director of FASEA, was urgently arranging to meet with him.

In related news, the FPA had appointed Western Sydney University Associate Professor, Sharon Taylor as the Chair of the Financial Planning Education Council (FPEC).

Taylor was previously the Deputy Chair of FPEC for six years and moves into the role after Dr Mark Brimble stepped down from chairing FPEC on 14 February following FASEA’s decision to adopt FPEC’s framework and course approval list.

  • Jeremy Wright

    The comment that there is broad acceptance that those without a degree need to undertake further study, seems to ignore the massive backlash from Life Insurance specialists who refuse to accept ridiculous further study that has no bearing on what they do.

    Ask a brain surgeon or cancer specialist how happy they would be if their qualifications now became irrelevant and in order to still work in their specialist role, they will need to do further studies on every other area of illness or disability a person can suffer.

    The reason specialists specialize, is because they want to focus their skills in the area they are best qualified and experienced in.

    Being a General Practitioner does not make a GP a specialist in all matters, yet the theory education guru’s seem to think, forcing more study and cost onto practitioners for the sake of a bit of paper, will solve all the worlds problems.

    Ticking boxes to show paper qualifications does not help people with their individual requirements and the world has gone mad with this insane paper shuffling that focuses “not” on what we do, instead it focuses on what we do not do.

    The education lobbyists have hoodwinked the Government and the regulators into thinking this new age thinking will be the answer to everything.