- No (76%)
- Yes (19%)
- Not sure (5%)
Our latest poll seeks your input on whether you think FASEA’s minimum education requirements for existing advisers is fair.
This poll follows the announcement at last week’s AFA National Adviser Conference that recognition and credits would be given for education course work taken by advisers in the process of attaining the AFA’s FChFP or the FPA’s CFP designations (see: FASEA Win For Advisers).
Here’s what Assistant Treasurer, The Hon Stuart Robert, shared with advisers last Friday:
- Existing advisers with no degrees will not be required to undertake a bachelors degree but will be required to undertake eight subjects equivalent to a Graduate Diploma by 1 January 2024
- Of those eight subjects, advisers who hold an existing Advanced Diploma in Financial Planning will receive two credits out of the eight subjects or credits required
- An additional two subjects will be credited to existing advisers in recognition of the industry education course work conducted to attain the FPA’s CFP qualification or the FChFP qualification provided by the AFA, provided these qualifications were obtained after a certain date
The Minister confirmed that advisers who had completed advanced diplomas and the CFP or FChFP industry accreditations will have already met four of the eight mandatory units and would only be required to take units on Ethics, the Corporations Act, Behavioural Finance and one other subject of their choice.
While we reported the Minister’s comments as a ‘win’ for advisers, the comments we’ve received following the release of our story have been almost entirely negative.
One adviser has argued that this ‘win’ is akin to reducing a 100-metre race to 99.99 metres. Another has commented:
“In 2004 they change DFP to ADFP. If you did ADFP you now get two credits for the new requirements but advisers like myself who studied earlier get nothing.“
Elsewhere, one adviser made the point that studying for and passing a unit on Ethics will only serve to prove how good a person is at passing an Ethics exam, without demonstrating the adviser’s actual ethics when it comes to serving their clients.
We’re still following-up the details on a few points in relation to how far back FASEA will recognise prior learning, and the Assistant Treasurer has noted the remaining details of FASEA’s requirements will be released in the coming weeks.
In the meantime, though, based on what you know today, where do you stand on the question of whether these new requirements represent a solution that’s fair and reasonable for the approximately 25,000 existing authorised representatives who will be transitioning to the new minimum education regime by 1 January 2024.
Tell us what you think and we’ll report back next week…
I completed my eight subject DFP through Deakin prior to 2004 so the new announcement means nothing to me. As a sixty old adviser with forty years of industry experience in front of clients , (which will be forty five years in 2023) I had no intention of leaving the industry at age sixty-five, but legislation will force my practical experience and myself out of the industry, despite me having planned health willing, to retire at age seventy, having then given fifty years of my life to an industry that I love. With all this noise about falling practice values, my retirement is now far from secure. Is it any wonder I now live with anxiety and depression?
So with a related degree my Full 8 subject DFP is worth NOTHING !!!! Yet if I’ve only done an ADFP then I’ve studied less but get rewarded for the ADFP. Thus FASEA are still penalising older more experienced adviser who studied earlier.
And 3 subjects will cost me say $15k course costs plus 3 x 120 hrs x $330 / hr $119,000, so it’s still going to cost me $134,000 to be re-educated to do my job I’ve done for 20yrs.
Stuff you FASEA.
All Politicians should be made to do FASEA to keep their jobs, we all know they lack Ethics.
And what about All the Bank CEOs, executives and managers, All the insurance co CEOs & executives, Super Fund Trustees and Executives, Associations FPA, AFA, AIOFP, SMSFA, FSC all executives, And let’s not forget ASIC, APRA & ATO, all executives should be forced to do FASEA.
I have an accounting degree, a DipFs and have been a Chartered Accountant for 28 years and I now also carry the CA Financial Planning specialist designation. I did an intensive PY year which covered Ethics among other subjects, and have been in Accounting / Financial Services since I was 18 years old. However it appears I will still be required to complete three bridging subjects at great cost, time and effort (whilst still running a practice with all associated compliance obligations) It is completely inappropriate that experience and membership of the Institute of Chartered Accountants counts for nothing…
I haven’t seen anyone mention this yet, but given that this study is being mandated (where previously an ADFS was adequate), I am wondering if there will be any subsidies for those of us who need to undertake this study?
I agree with others who have said that politicians should also have to undertake mandatory study, particularly around ethics (if they truly believe that studying ethics will make one an ethical person…)
“Of those eight subjects, advisers who hold an existing Advanced Diploma in Financial Planning will receive two credits out of the eight subjects or credits required
An additional two subjects will be credited to existing advisers in recognition of the industry education course work conducted to attain the FPA’s CFP qualification or the FChFP qualification provided by the AFA, provided these qualifications were obtained after a certain date”
But my belief was that if you held an existing Advanced Diploma in Financial Planning you qualified for the FChFP designation (it is not a qualification). So why not say that those who have an existing Advanced Diploma in Financial Planning will receive four credits out of the eight subjects or credits required.
What it means is that the AFA have been able to lobby government to preserve their own educational offerings rather than to continue to lobby for overall common sense per se.
Little wonder their self-congratulatory behaviour after the AFA conference for a concession that is great for the Associations but not necessarily of great benefit for the vast majority of advisers. The AFA appear to have lobbied hard for themselves rather than the Advisers who pay their wages.
It has been mentioned previously, though a carve out of irrelevant study for Risk only advisers is crucial, or there will be an exodus of quality advisers and this would be a Fail for the Government and the Regulator for the Best Interest Duty for clients, when their adviser is no longer able to look after them.
The Life Insurance Companies also need to understand that less advisers, will not improve the outcome for their profits, as advisers do most of the work that masks the inefficiencies Life Companies continue to inflict on clients and with no buffer, the lapse rates will increase, customer complaints will rise and the situation will continue.until these Companies will make an announcement that they will no longer be offering Life Insurance products, as the tightening economic situation, makes it unviable to continue. Blaa Blaa Blaa.
I have no issue with incompetent Life Insurance Companies exiting the market, they deserve what they get, though as usual,stupid management are always the REAL reason and real culprits, though they always seem to parachute themselves into other Companies and leave the innocent employees and clients to suffer the consequences of their inaction, or inane, irrelevant actions that led to the Company declining.
Surely the old 8 subject DFP that I completed in 2002 is equivalent to the current 4 subject DFP plus the 4 subject Advanced DFP. Looking at the subjects they look to be the same or at least very similar.
Comments are closed.