Latest Poll – 10-Year ‘Experience Pathway’

6
Do you support the Government’s ‘Experience Pathway’ proposal for 10-year advisers of good standing?
  • Yes (59%)
  • No (36%)
  • Not sure (5%)

Our latest poll seeks your view on the Government’s proposed 10-Year ‘Experience’ Pathway, which was announced last week (see: ‘Experience Pathway’ Proposed…)

Since the Government’s announcement that it would consult with the sector around its proposed experience pathway, there appear to have been two distinct reactions from the adviser community.

In favour

Some advisers and other industry stakeholders support the move to offer the experience pathway for 10-year advisers of good standing as a way to stem the current and future exodus of advisers from the sector, which in turn would mean more Australians, especially those represented in the ‘mums and dads’ demographic, would have access to the financial advice that would make such a difference for many.

Against

Elsewhere, another group of advisers is disappointed with what they consider to be a retrograde step in the pathway to establishing financial advice as a profession in the mind of the consumers they serve. This group of advisers considers the establishment of an experience pathway would also be a retrograde move in terms of rebuilding trust in financial advice and financial advisers following the fallout from the Global Financial Crisis and the revelations aired during the Financial Services Royal Commission.

Neither of these perspectives is right or wrong. Rather, they represent valid points of view held by many advisers.

Which side of the coin represents your own view? Are you in favour of the creation of an experience pathway for 10-year advisers of good standing? Should this pathway have always been included by FASEA when it was developing its minimum education standards?

Or do you hold that introducing the experience pathway will only delay the achievement of ‘professional’ status’ for the sector – not just in the view of those within the industry (or profession) but also in the mind of those who advisers seek to serve?

Tell us what you think and we’ll report back in the New Year…



RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

6 COMMENTS

  1. Both viewpoints are valid, though there is a need for a platform that balances Professionalism, with what Australians want and need, realism that can outweigh idealism and commercial viability.

    We seem to be getting stuck with idealism, which in it’s own right is a good and valid path to take, unless it creates what we face today, which is the exact opposite of what the idealists stated they wanted for us all.

    Commercial reality and the risks involved in abiding by a set of rules laid down by idealists with nil, or very little practical experience, has been proven for thousands of years to be a road to avoid and experienced Advice practitioners warned all and sundry of the consequences of following that road, which were ignored.

    There are some people who have the ability to crystal ball the future impacts of bad policy, though in the most part, they are ignored and their valid arguments are buried under an avalanche of misinformation from vested interest groups.

    And the merry go round continues.

    For all the alarmists and naysayers who are arguing about bringing experience back into the equation as an overriding positive benefit, then I would suggest that you belong to the vested interest groups and it would be nice if we knew who you are, so you can be put onto the stage, brought into the spotlight and questions asked with answers demanded about your theories, rather than what has been, which is to hide behind the curtains with a booming voice and veil of secrecy as to your real intentions.

  2. I voted yes, but it is too late for me, as I have already handed back my licence (35 years plus), and transferred my business to another adviser. Although meeting the new education standards was not the only reason for me leaving pre-maturely, it certainly played a big part in my decision making, especially when told that my my previous qualifications were to be given little or no recognition due to when they were done. I am happy for anyone who hung in there hoping for some common sense to prevail, but, realistically, announcing something like this at the 11th hour is really too little too late for many, many advisers like me and typical of politicians who have no concern for the consequences of their rushed and ill-considered decisions. Merry Christmas to all.

  3. I opted for “dont know” because although i dont think older adviser should undertake a degree…i dont know if 10 years…is the right number…maybe 10 years from the time the degree requirements first came in…i would like the requirements to reflect what every other emerging profesdion has implimented…why do we need to be different to doctors or lawyers or accountants…etc.

    • Early in my career Phil, I worked as a quantity survey, undertaking a full degree qualification, which was the norm at the time. My boss and all the fully qualified people QS’s in the office, however, held Diplomas only, as that was the qualification at the time they graduated. They were never made to go back to get a degree and most are still working in the industry. It’s all about staying up to date with current trends and advancements via continuing professional development. Even older doctors I know talk about the how much more involved the current pathway to being a doctor is compared to what they did at the time. Should they go back and do a new degree because things have changed?

      • I appreciate your input. I agree.
        Good to hear of other understand
        of the process to professionalization and supporting the research.

      • What do you do now Greg? I was very interested to note in my research that QS’s particularly those that are involved in large scale cost analysis and management are considered a profession, that is meeting all the parameters of a professional practice.

Comments are closed.