Latest Poll – FASEA Extensions

Will the proposed FASEA extensions have a positive impact on your plans for the future of your advice business?

  • Yes (53%)
  • No (36%)
  • Not sure (10%)

Our latest poll asks you to consider the impact of the proposed FASEA time extensions on your business.

Announced (eventually!) at last week’s AFA Conference, the extensions, which must still be passed by both Houses of Parliament, will now require advisers to:

  • Complete the FASEA-approved exam by 1 January 2022 (one additional year)
  • Meet FASEA’s qualification requirements by 1 January 2026 (two additional years)

To what extent will these concessions have an impact on you and your advice business? Will it offer you the breathing space you need to pass the exam and achieve your minimum education qualifications while still managing to operate your business as well as maintain a life outside your business?

If so, we presume this will be a positive development for you and for your business in what – for many – is a particularly difficult transition period, given the volume and scope of recent regulatory reforms imposed on the advice sector.

We appreciate the underlying opposition from many advisers to the FASEA exam and the new minimum education standards, but given there appears to be no turning back, will these time extensions make a difference for you?

Let us know what you think and we’ll report back next week…

  • Jeremy Wright

    There is always a turning back if the direction you are taking will send you off a cliff.

    The only people who matter in this debate, are the ones who will be the most affected.

    The Australian public will be impacted negatively as a result of what the Government and the regulators are doing, though this is an indirect impact.

    The Retail Life Insurance Industry has started to decline and it will decline rapidly upon thousands of experienced risk advisers exiting due to this insane FASEA restriction of trade.

    The way to stop falling off the cliff, is to change direction and this change must be to scrap FASEA for experienced risk advisers.

    This is not negotiable.

    • Squeaky_1

      We need you in Canberra, Jeremy, saying exactly this to clueless pollies. It is great to see you commenting here, you are in my opinion the most capable wordsmith among us. However it is all for nought if the pollies, life companies and news outlets don’t read your strong words here. I do hope at least you are somehow getting your common sense and providential words into the ears of life company execs as I once knew you to do.

  • PS

    As a 30+ year risky it is not about timelines it is about content. Tackling my mandatory CPD points using Kaplan, I can find little to nothing about ‘insurance’ which is all I do. It is irrelevant to me – ‘how many 85+ years old say they’re in poor health’ or ‘reporting abuse in aged care facilities’. My 89 year old mother is in aged care so I already know what to do!!!

    As Jeremy says, FASEA is of NO relevance to specialist risk writers and our 20, 30 and 40 year experienced risk advisers should be recognised for just that – EXPERIENCE! It trumps any degree, any day of the week.

    Just ask your AFSL Manager what they think of the the new crop of tertiary qualified young people fronting up to them. They know about the special age 65 super contribution on sale of the primary residence, but ask them how they would go about advising and ‘selling’, yes that’s right, ‘selling’ a risk insurance policy and they wouldn’t know where to start.

    • Squeaky_1

      POWERFUL – great words PS!

  • Ken

    The industry is reeling from over a Billion dollars in IP claims What do they think is going to happen when thousands of advisers leave the industry killing off their major source of new business income to cover the demand in claims
    Do they think they can just walk away ? Who will continue to pay the claims and for how long ?? Let the government wrestle with that one on top of the private health industry that is also almost on its knees
    Trying to trim commissions Greedy 2 year claw backs are penny pinching ideas for survival that won’t last much longer
    They need constructive and realistic underwriting not decline after decline ( the three strikes and your out is ridiculous)
    As Jeremy has stated it’s not just the advisers heading to the cliff it’s the insurance companies who are quickly following like Lemmings
    If they don’t stop and re work this total FAESA and LIF fiasco the aftermath will
    resemble a train wreck

    • Squeaky_1

      Couldn’t agree more Ken – well stated on all points!