- I support the Pathway as currently proposed. (37%)
- I do not support the Experienced Pathway. (21%)
- I will only support the Pathway if it includes both the sunset clause and the Code of Ethics unit. (19%)
- I will only support the Pathway if it also includes a 10-year sunset clause. (14%)
- I will only support the Pathway if it includes the requirement to complete the Code of Ethics unit. (7%)
- I remain unsure. (2%)
The debate over the nature of the Government’s proposed Experienced Adviser Pathway forms the basis for our latest poll.
As the Financial Advice Association continues its 2023 United Association Roadshow this week, both FAAA adviser members and the broader financial advice community are listening to and contributing to the debate around what constitutes a fair and reasonable solution where the intention is to better recognise experienced financial advisers of good standing.
One of the key bones of contention for those opposing the wording of the exposure draft bill for the Experienced Adviser Pathway relates to those advisers who have grasped the nettle to undertake the minimum education levels required under the former FASEA mandate, which involved significant commitments of time and money for many. ‘I’ve made the effort, so why shouldn’t the rest of my peers?’
Also of concern for many is the potential perception that if the Experienced Adviser Pathway is implemented, not every practising adviser will be required to meet the minimum education standards previously imposed by FASEA, which may in turn generate trust issues among the public.
To counter some of these concerns, the FAAA has proposed two amendments, which are:
- Applying a 10-year sunset clause, to avoid planners currently in their 30s to continue to practice indefinitely with no further qualifications required
- Requiring all advisers to have completed the Code of Ethics Graduate level subject introduced by FASEA
According to the FAAA, its membership is evenly divided in its support for the Experienced Adviser Pathway in its current form, but this support grows to 70% if both the sunset clause and Code of Ethics subject requirement are incorporated into the legislation (see: Support for a Better-targeted Experienced Pathway).
Where do you stand on this issue? Are you ok with the Government’s current wording, or would you only confer your support if one or both of the two proposed amendments are applied? Then again, perhaps you reject the Experienced Pathway proposal outright, and believe it should not be implemented at all.
That’s enough from us for the time being. Tell us what you think and we’ll report back next week…
In another lifetime, I worked in health delivery. One of the issues concerning us was that registered medical officers who staffed the Accident and Emergency Departments of our large public hospitals were compelled to work a continuous 24 hour shift over a weekend.
We didn’t think that was a good way to deliver quality medical services to people presenting at A & E. We met with the senior medical professionals who operated in that hospital and proposed an alternative.
Their answer amazed me. Their attitude was “we had to work 24-hour shifts we were coming through the hospital system, and why shouldn’t these new people do the same”. After all ,said one, “it made men of us”. No exceptions, carry on.
I see that same attitude in those investment advisers (mainly) who took the time to study the FASEA Ethics unit. And also pass the FASEA exam “They did it, and why shouldn’t everyone else do it.” It’s bias, disguised as professionalism
I regard that as an elitist argument, as well as an ageist discrimination, because many mature advisers are just not capable of doing yet another course, purely because it looks good. But I suspect I’ll be subject to some incoming vitriol. To pass the FASEA exam, I had to undertake about 10 hours of tutelage and then another 20 hours of study. Perhaps someone can explain to me if I’ve done all that work and passed the FASEA exam, of what value to my clients will be yet another piece of paper.
I agree 100% Oldie! As you know, I’m out now and I never did the FARCE-IA exam on principle. Selling up and leaving when I did, it turned out, I never had to do the haphazardly thrown together thing, thankfully.
Yes, another bit of paper that does nothing to extend client best interest from old hands like us. It was such an ill-conceived ‘exam’ too, hastily cobbled together by self-concerned academics with little, if any, client-facing experience or ability. A bad joke, on advisers and clients. Very well written, as usual, Oldie.
This is a no-win argument no matter what people say, as there will always be differing opinions, viewpoints, vested interests, anger from those who sacrificed family time, money and Business growth in order to pass onerous and time wasting courses, including the insulting code of ethics exam, that ignored the fact that an Advisers impeccable past history, thousands of hours of ongoing studies and a clean Audit, counted for little, while the Education Industry were falling over themselves to create new courses and make millions of dollars at all our expense.
It appears the FAAA have still not grasped the most important sticking point.
Even today, after twelve thousand Advisers have exited the Industry, it is as clear as day that the current required Education format for risk Advisers and risk Advice is a total failure.
We have gone from many thousands to now hundreds of specialist risk Advisers and the number is still declining, with only at best, a handful of New Risk Advisers entering the Industry via the University pathway.
This is a catastrophe and yet the FAAA seem oblivious.
Wealth Protection is the foundation that Financial Planning stands upon, as all the Tax, Investment and Retirement planning becomes a mute point, if due to illness, injury or death, a persons ability to earn money to buy things and Invest, disappears.
Life and Disability Insurance always was and always will be, a different Industry to the Investment Industry.
The insanity of todays approach if we compared it to the transport Industry, is to say that cars, trucks, boats and aeroplanes are the same thing due to the fact they move people and products and therefore all of them should comply with the same rules.
Why don’t we cut the crap and get back to the real world implications to Business and personal outcomes, based on utopian idealistic views that would be laughable, except they destroy lives and Businesses when implemented.
The argument in this poll, should not be about the micro implications of how Advisers feel, but the bigger picture of the Advised Life Insurance Industry and it’s ability to survive with LESS Advisers and what MUST be done to fix the decline for the good of ALL Advisers, our existing clients and the rest of the population who may need risk advice.
The solution always WAS and always WILL be, to separate risk advice from Investment advice and make it viable and attractive enough for existing and new people to want to work in the risk space.
We have seen how the current grand plan has worked. Risk Advisers numbers plummeting, premiums doubling and new potential clients being turned away.
If the FAAA are serious about fixing the problems, then they need to look at the root causes of what has occurred.
The Government is looking for guidance on this, so to the FAAA, the ball is in your court to start playing the real game, as this is not a practice session.
Hahahahahaaaa! The FAAA must have just read your comment Jeremy as IFA came out with a story this afternoon on how the FAAA “is very concerned about risk specialists” – for the very reasons you touch upon. Couldn’t make this stuff up!
Once again, you’ve nailed it mate and I can only get a lump in my throat when I read through your well reasoned and prescient words. I think back to the ‘questionable’ old days when we both worked with Alex Bruce at DNA (God luv him!) and all the ‘questionable’ common sense that abounded in those days – even from industry entities and authorities around our once- great profession. Wouldn’t some of that common sense, even just a little, be worth gold today. Cheers and try to keep the faith 🙂
Comments are closed.