FINANCIAL services education has been a hot topic throughout this year, but the issue is about to get even hotter because of a decision made by the National Finance Industry Training Advisory Body (NFITAB).
Who is NFITAB is probably a question most people will ask, but as the body appointed by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to set the standards for recognised financial services training, their decisions have an enormous effect.
Last week, NFITAB named three groups as being able to offer courses that are not only on par with the Financial Planning Association’s (FPA) Diploma of Financial Planning (DFP) but will also plug into the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) program.
And while these courses have been available for some time, the big change is that they will no longer have to seek a rubber stamp from the FPA, as they have already received a much higher approval from NFITAB.
What this represents is an opening up of the market for those seeking a way into the CFP program without having to necessarily take the FPA path, while still maintaining the CFP mark as the peak planning designation.
But even more, it is a huge step forward for the advice industry because the DFP will no longer sit within the hands of a single organisation.
While the FPA has built a solid education stream, the controls on the education of the industry cannot remain in the hands of one group.
Instead, an approach to set education standards as one of its key platforms while not being involved in the actual provision of education sits better with the focus of a professional association.
Money Managementhas raised the issue before and repeats its assertions that industry education and industry representation within one professional body is something that cannot continue to offer the best options to all industry members.
The moves by NFITAB and the naming of other groups would seem to reinforce this position.
