The number of financial advisers has held up better than expected in the first week of the New Year. The result follows months of concern about mass exits linked to education and qualification requirements.
According to analysis by Padua Wealth Data’s Colin Williams, while 14 new advisers joined the ranks, departures saw a net loss of five advisers. As of Thursday 8 January there were 15,145 advisers.
…the adviser market is still volatile…
“The numbers show the adviser market is still volatile,” says Williams. “Earlier projections of much larger losses were based on ASIC’s ‘point in time’ data, which showed many advisers without the required qualifications and few applying for the experienced pathway.
“As late as 20 November the situation looked dire, but many advisers have updated their records in recent weeks.”
As of 8 January ASIC’s FAR data, as shared by Williams, shows:
- 213 advisers show no qualifications meeting the 2026 standards
- 78 of those may be eligible for the experienced pathway
- 66 advisers flagged for the experienced pathway took the FASEA Exam after October 2022 and are therefore likely to be ineligible for the experienced pathway
Licensee activity remained positive, with five new licensees commencing operations so far this year – including two recommencements – while only one licensee exited the market.
Since 1 December 2025, a total of 440 advisers have ceased, a figure Williams described as “not insignificant”, but notably lower than earlier forecasts.
While “the worst appears to have passed” resolving outstanding qualification issues will take time says Williams.
Advisers, advisers, advisers. Colin Williams never mentions how he defines an adviser. You'd think he'd by across this by now. He seems to go to a lot of trouble to analyze and report these things but never does he say what he means by an "adviser". What on earth is he saying? How many RISK specialist advisers is he referencing. How many advisers of which he speaks write risk?
I'd have thought the masthead of RiskInfo may have probed further into this. The story would be much more meaningful to those in the risk industry (profession?) if this delineation was made clear. Let's remember, as many easily gloss over, that the duties, skills and discipline of a risk specialist are very different to that of a regular investment adviser. Yet the industry (profession?) insist on lumping them both into one big barrel for the sake of streamlined and easier (useless) reporting and like to call them all just "advisers". Why?
What clarity would articles deliver if we started reporting on dentists, neurosurgeons and proctologists simply as medical advisers with no expansion on precisely which discipline we meant? – or police, high court judges, court stenographers and deputies as 'legal advisers'? How many times does this need to be brought up before the demi-gods of research houses, financial reporting mastheads and specialist analyst firms get it? If nothing else it should colour the accuracy of reporting by someone like Colin Williams and his ilk.
Comments are closed.