‘Exceptional’ older advisers should be grandfathered

Exceptional older financial advisers should be grandfathered with specific disciplines before the “bloodshed” in 2026 or the 2026 education deadline should be extended, according to an adviser.

Super Innovations principal, Joseph Cilmi, said with another adviser exodus “bloodshed” coming up in 2026, “exceptional” advisers over the age of 60 needed to be grandfathered from the education authority’s approved degree requirement.

“For those that are over the 60 mark – I think it's a bit unfair to get them to go back and maybe get them grandfathered with specific disciplines,” he said.

Related News:

“So, if they just do insurance, they do insurance and nothing else, and they have to refer everything else out. There needs to be some sort of accommodation there.

“Reaching 2026 and then you've been thrown off the cliff I think that's a little bit unfair. It's either that or they extend the 2026 period.”

On classifying “exceptional” advisers, Cilmi said the advisers would need to get a judgement from clients on their past history and identify any past compliance issues.

“FASEA [the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority] is trying to clamp down on these rogues but they're not all rogues. So, you would have to tackle their history,” he said.

“They've been in the industry 20 years. What have they done? Any compliance risks in the community? Are they involved with the community? That's another big plus.

“If they're involved in the community it tells me they've got the best interest of the community at heart and this is what a professional is. At the end of the day, you’ve got the community at heart not the dollar. I think there needs to be a lot of discussion before 2026 and it needs to be pushed hard.”

Recommended for you




FARSEA should be investigated for its boards conflicts of interest and links to Uni courses and materials sales.
Had FARSEA followed the Govt mandate and looked at all past education, CPD, etc then this shouldn’t have been an issue.
FARSEA are conflicted & corrupted to sell more Uni courses, remember their first statement, “any degree older than 10 years doesn’t count, all start Uni again from scratch”. What a moronic statement and a stupid place FARSEA started from meant the whole process was doomed.

So, we are now going to determine who the chosen ones are? Alternatively, they could have done some credible academic study in the previous 20 years like so many others did, let alone the last couple plus additional 2 years. For the record, I could see the CFP "designation" for what it was and decided to study on to master for the sake of my clients and professional self respect. And yes, I was running a business at the time and I had not previously done any uni. So let's stop the nonsense of "exceptional adviser" right now. Stop the excuses and do the study as is required by any credible profession. Anything less is an insult to advisers who have already made the effort.

I 'wonder' if the current system is perhaps guilty of telling puppies that they are 'dogs' before their bark has broken! There has been some constructive comment above about the possible conflict of interest in the process which has been taken by those put in the position of trust. Some of us older folk may have completed science and other degrees long before the modern era of 'tick a box' exams. I wonder if I do not see an element of 'tick a box' in this comment; sadly this type of thinking has become a norm in much of modern life? There is nothing great about getting a degree - most graduates I come across in accounting and financial planning do not really understand what they have done in their degrees and have to learn to apply it. Someone put a box to tick saying 1 year post degree makes you perfect and then in the great Australian tradition you get the 'ticket' to operate. Some of the real professions have fellowships and the like and making the grade after a degree is that much more of a hurdle. Some of us have gone to great lengths to fill in the gaps in that never ending pursuit of betterment. I think the writer of this article is referring to those who have - maybe not just the masters which is much like the degrees of old. The fact of the matter is that that to go back and do 'tick a box' courses does not really achieve a great deal.

You absolute hero.

Can you clarify something for me? I'm a 60 year old risk adviser, only do risk, and will never do 'financial planning' that is not risk. I have 3 degrees, none insurance related, which gives me one course exemption from the PG Diploma. Given the number of courses I would need to do that are not relevant to my work, and with 20 years of ongoing CPD and diploma courses, and other courses behind me (estate planning etc that also don't qualify for course exemptions), and with consistently 'low risk' audits and never a complaint, can you explain to us all how completing the PGDiploma, filled with courses I will never use, will make me more professional, other than as sacred membership of a 'profession'? Do you honestly think that having a few letters after someone's name makes them competent, trustworthy, or 'professional'? Tell me, do you know how you went on your FASEA exam? You might have just scraped in by the skin of your proverbial teeth, but no one will tell you, yet you are considered competent and 'more professional'. That's a fair load of bollocks.

Bollocks is thinking you can just write risk and not look at any of the clients other circumstances. Do you ever recommend insurance owned by super? You are over 60, you had all those massive upfronts, yet you still whine and whinge about getting this study done. You cant just write risk these days without taking other circumstances into account. Yes its more work that you are used to, sorry but the good ol days are gone. You older guys need to stop belittling this study too, im almost 50 , ive learnt some really good things through this study , its not tick a box either its quite challenging. Letters after peoples names as you put it are very hard to get, they do make you a better person, it shows you have good discipline for a start.

I hate the saying '' it is what it is' but this seems to be the case when it comes to the educational standards they have tried to set, and I don't agree with them in total and certainly think the rollout was very poor. The reality is, good risk advisers were let down professionally by poor risk advisers, good financial planners were let down professionally by poor financial planners. You can't educate people totally toward ethics - witness the legal and accounting professions and their lower hanging evils. But you can set basic education standards that also include ethics - as a base line, to say, if you cross these line you can't say you didn't know or have the opportunity to learn. They had to do something and have. I think it will be very difficult for Labour to subjectively assess who is a good/bad person with the 10 years experience. Perhaps the only way around it is to delineate advisers - risk, FP, Investment etc . But then you will still be required to have say a PG Diploma in Risk as a specialty for example. As an aside I think it's very difficult to give Risk advice - especially Life and TPD, where super is involved, without detailed knowledge of both tax and super rules - i.e. it's more broader, FP like advice, than just risk. But that's my opinion.

You sound a bit lazy.....the Problem is humans all have biases and the Degree qualified individuals working both in ASIC and Treasury believe in University education....and a lot of other people too.... Not to mention the public expect you to have qualifications above a 19 year old Hairdresser. An experienced chap like you, the effort to complete 6 units (not 8) would be equivalent to washing your car. That's 6 car washes, 6 subjects done easily,. All for less than $10,000 with 50% off, ..that's a great investment in yourself, your peers,your industry i think.

Not sure you can move forward with such a subjective definition as ‘exceptional’ but I’ve always thought the changes were grossly unfair, esp to older advisers.

A degree pays an 18 yo for over 40 years, for a 60 yo it’s 5. This makes no sense and is patently unfair.

Why does the government have the right to take away both a career and a business from someone who has been slaving on for 20-25 years??

It’s an absolute disgrace.

These poor guys are paying the price for greedy vertically integrated corporates who have slunk away back to the dark holes from which they came.

Finally some sense has been touched on. Having survived 39 years in this business the one thing that has kept my client base going is building relationships with each other. Intra-personal relationships. Clients have told me they value this above all else. I do not give advice anymore as I pass that over to a younger, eager and enthusiastic adviser. I am the face, the voice of first contact. The process works well. Sitting a proctored exam and having to ask permission to take medication or use the bathroom is humiliating. Furthermore what exam results will never tell you where you could have done better, or where you failed?

Sounds like you're intentionally circumventing the law... whether or not your name is on the SOA, if the client deems you to be giving the advice, or the face of the advice as you put it, you will be in breach.

If I was you, I would retire and let your younger adviser control the relationships with his clients.

Half of these old idiots are the ones whose business practices delivered the cluster-F^%% we have today. They have had years to get this education stuff sorted as tertiary education standards have been on the agenda since the early 90's. The writing has been on the wall for a long time and they have chosen to ignore it. Tough - now you pay the price.

The education standards have been 'coming' for a decade, instead of getting on with it and being done by now, some have chosen to complain the whole time as you have said.

The old 'business model' of treating clients as an annuity and not servicing them proactively is where most of these 'exceptional' advisers come from. Its a new industry now, adapt like the rest of us or move on.

let's put this to bed, let's just increase the education standard even higher to the following:

a. must have a master of financial planning degree (AQF9) to enter the profession AND:

b. must complete a doctorate in financial planning within 6 years of entering the profession AND:

c. must have 7 years of mentored professional experience or 10,000 hours of work experience AND

d. pass a 3 part industry exam modeled on the CFA but also with behavioral finance and psychology embedded

i) level 1, multi-choice, the whole exam is 12 hours in length and must be completed in 1 day broken up into equal parts of
3 hours each

ii) level 2, multi-choice and short answer, as above, only one bathroom break allowed and only one glass of drinking water
allowed must be fasting for the
the whole time, unless you are diabetic or have other life-threatening illnesses have a medical certificate to consume
any food on the day of the exam

iii) level 3, as above short answer and essay type questions

BEFORE< anyone can be registered as a financial planner. that beats every profession, it's the hardest ever professional qualification route and obviously, everyone will agree (including regulators and other paraprofessionals- well pretty much everyone compared to us will be a para-professional, with some individual exceptions of course)

p.s. I have to also do the exam and the doctorate so let's go. happy everyone?

A wide sweeping generalist statement with no valid evidence to support. You're obviously not an adviser. The valid statistical evidence provided by AFCA clearly shows the vast majority of advisers, including the ''old idiots'', having been providing quality advice for years. The environment we have today has been delivered by the greed & avarice of the big end of town - the banks, superfunds, insurers, & misguided left-wing consumer groups. Ably assisted by an incompetent regulator with as agenda & an ignorant legislator playing politics.

Its only now the regulator/legislators are listening to the profession, including the ''old idiots'', we're seeing positive steps to rectify the damage done. May be rather than attacking the elders of the profession it may help if you to actually listened & learned from those who actually understand the issues..

but you allowed that environment to continue. If those "big end of town" kept blaming you and saying you're uneducated then why didn't you do something about it. Yes you are spot on, it's not your fault, it's not my fault, but us "old idiots" made it our industries problem by doing the minimum, or operating in a manner that gave all those parties you blame..the easy ammunition. I still see those issues in young educated advisers today, and shake my head. As an example we don't have a professional association to advocate on our behalf, only conflicted industry associations and young advisers join and are out there thinking "i'm a professional" if anything they're the real idiots.

Get with the times old man. We want a profession not an old boys club )literally and figuratively)

I respectfully disagree Big Kev....Bachelor Degree's in Financial Planning didn't exist until a few years ago so how could the older highly experienced advisers have done them back in their younger day? If those degrees had existed and were a mandated regulated requirement back then, I'm sure the Olde Guard would have done them. Also, the Cluster-F of business practices of the past that you refer to was the domain of the major Bank's.....I know because I saw it play out in front of me when the Bank's brought in overseas executives with their toxic sales and HR management cultures which forced advisers to "do as directed" or get out. For the record, I have multiple degrees and agree that all new entrants should have a B.BusFP degree. What I disagree with is the Olde Guard with 20+ years of degrees from the University of Life, On The Job Experience and Hard Knocks to be disrespected and discarded. Please show them some respect as they are founding forefathers of our industry which has evolved and continues to evolve. They did what was expected of them at that time.

but they did the minimum and the minimum isn't good enough. They don't deserve respect.

Said degrees have been around long enough to complete them many times over.

We all didn't want to have to do it.... But sometimes you need to suck it up and recognise the bar was set very, very low until this point. Be happy we have been able to control client's financial futures with just a diploma for so long.

SD, I am surprised you expect you current qualifications to remain relevant for any meaningful time at all. A Federal Budget or two all your knowledge from your course is well out of date - perhaps in twenty years your piece of paper will be looking very old in deed and there will be younger, more recently qualified people around that have much more relevant qualifications than the ones you will be relying on (bit of a relic really by that time).

In twenty years time, will you be due to update your education to the more modern qualifications available or will you be relying on past efforts? Remember, if you finish Uni at 22, you might only be in your early 40's and have a degree that is twenty years old, at 60 years of age, your degree will be 40 years of age - and I would like to see how you defend yourself with qualifications that are that old but for others you can't.

If the industry evolves, and further study is required (whether beneficial or just mandated by law) ill just get on with it and do it as I already have once.

If people redirected the energy and time spent complaining about these changes announced years ago, they would have already met the requirements.

Well SD, just re-do your qualifications again in a few years time as many others are being asked to do. Congratulations on to you on having completed something once "ill just get on with it and do it as I already have once." Time to do as others are being asked to do - and do more qualifications - with no complaining from you SD.

Got any proof there big Trev or is it just the vibe?

I guess Big Trev could say.....volume based bonuses, platform rebates, nil entry fees, licensee's owned by a product manufacturer brainwashing advisers, discounted licensing fees, being a typical AMP adviser and having 1000 clients and getting commissions and actually servicing 100. ..is that sufficient proof?.....I think the words to describe the past are are "no longer meets community expectations"

Yogi, having 1,000s of clients and receiving payment from them for a service (which might or might not be delivered) is alive and well I hate to inform you.
The days of privately owned practices working hard to service as many client as they can and having the ability to move a client to an alternative product is all over, replaced by a Product Provider who now directly employees and controls the delivery of advice to the members - and collects and keeps the fees for this service - so no Commission Yogi - just plain and simple you want your job, you do as your told and earn your salary and recommend?????? Could be wrong.

Can we just move on. Surely we are not going to moan about this for the next 5 years...
By 2026, they've given us 8 years to get qualified. Think about this from the pub test perspective. Lets just get on with it so we can be seen as a profession.

I think the point of the 2026 line in the sand (which has already been extended from 2024) is to say to all advisers (not just older advisers), you've got four years to get on board and meet the educational and professional requirements the government has stipulated. Of course there are many older, very capable, professional advisers who have great relationships with their clients, but there are also too many unprofessional and underqualified salesmen (not being sexist but it's mostly men) who don't know what client best interest is, who have flown under the radar for decades churning life insurance or collecting fees without providing any real ongoing advice or services and who have built a nice retirement nest egg. But who is to say what another "fairer" benchmark might be to stop good advisers becoming collateral damage? Both the AFA and FPA have made tremendous mistakes choosing a winning "adviser of the year". Popularity and profile and some clients testimonials are not good measures of exceptional behaviour. And why is 60 the age at which one is deemed to be an experienced and potentially 'exception' older adviser? I'm in my 50s and have been advising since the 90s. I've passed the FASEA exam and have 3 degrees and just the ethics course to go. If an adviser can't, in the next 4 years, complete the education necessary to stay in the industry, or decide that the return on investment for the cost of the course and the time out of the business is not warranted, or it's too much of an intellectual stretch to go from 4 subjects of a DFP to a degree equivalent, do they really deserve to remain in it when the point of the high benchmark is to clean out the people who don't want to move with the times. How could we call ourselves a highly qualified profession and take control of our own destiny and shake off the shackles of 20 years of disparate and conflicting over-regulation if we continue to say for the next 10 or 15 years "we're mostly a highly qualified profession, except for those olds and bolds who, bless 'em, didn't feel like doing what the rest of us have had to do to stay in the industry. As they die off though, we'll get there." This is what structural reform looks like. You either get on board or get left at the station.

spot on

Whilst I’m relevant degree qualified B.Econ, Full DFP, SMSF Specialist, Fin Advice Estate plan specialist etc, plus FARSEA exam & FAREAcal Ethics course done.
These corrupted FARSEA board Uni course sales flogging conflicted clowns didn’t want to recognise my past education to start with and also wanted me to start from scratch again.
How can they be sooooooooo freaking corrupted to take that position.
To flog more Uni courses, that’s how. These so called Ethical gods have no Ethics.
Now had they also taken into account my 23 years Advice experience, 15 years RM experience and 23 years of CPD then they would have correctly followed the Govt mandate.
But no FARSEA had their snouts in the trough of selling more Uni courses & books as their number 1 priority.
The same FARSEA that took corrupted ASIC paid for comment research by more so called corrupted & conflicted academics to totally screw Advisers with the changed and unworkable standard 3, with Zero consultation, again not following Govt mandate.
FARSEA’s board should be investigated.
FARSEA’s board destroyed a great opportunity.
FARSEA’s board have failed every one of their own Standards & Values & deserve zero respect.
FARSEA’s board does not deserve to destroy the careers of well experienced older Advisers, that have such little return on a cost benefit analysis of BS Uni courses.

I can see a Walkley Award winning opportunity for Adele Ferguson or Mark Willacy to look into the conflicts and run something on Four Corners - not just on FASEA and all their mistakes, but on all the conflicts in the broader financial services sphere

Age does not equal experience, and does not make an adviser any more capable or ethical.

To draw an example from medicine - despite most surveyed patients tending to prefer an older surgeon, for some procedures it was found that the older the surgeon is, the HIGHER the morbidity rate (see 'Surgeon Age and Operative Mortality in the Untied States' - Annals of Surgery).

Also, let's not forget Australia's Age Discrimination Act 2004 stipulates "Australians of all ages have the right to be treated fairly and to enjoy the same opportunities as others".

I, for one, am tired of being put through the ringer when it is the generations before me who have created the poor ethical culture that was demonstrated during the Royal Commission.

"I, for one, am tired of being put through the ringer when it is the generations before me who have created the poor ethical culture that was demonstrated during the Royal Commission." - Until the next Royal Commission when it will be your generations turn to be the cause of the next structural change :)

I’m not sure I understand your point. It was the BANKING Royal commission. The primary issues around fee for no service, charging deceased clients etc were the instos that regarded their employed financial planners as sales people not professionals. These’ sales’ ppl moved on as they were fired, recognised the business model for what it was or left and set up a private practice and started caring for clients in a a manner they felt more comfortable with. The intos meanwhile kept charging the fees although there was no servicing planner and the planners were then at fault for this??

As a result of this into behaviour we now have an almost unworkable compliance environment, especially for ordinary Australians except the very wealthy and the instos have run away.

Yes we had a percentage of the ‘old guard’ churning, for that we have LIF and the crap that represents. However this was also more regulatory ineptitude and contrition of the risk companies. Much more accountants and lawyers however go to gaol than planners. No profession is exempt from the less than scrupulous.

To label an entire generation as responsible is, at the very least naive. I too am furious with the regulatory overreach, constant planner blaming and inept regulation but you are directing your anger in the wrong direction.

For your benefit this comes from someone who is fully qualified and wasn’t around in those days. I was around earlier enough however to those times to see for myself what they were and how the instos did things. As a consequence if have that as a personal experience and can use that to help mentor the next generation of younger planners to be the best that they can be in a professional and ethical setting.

Hey Wonder Dog, why dont you put your real ame to your comments ? Just because you did the studies and "got on with it" in your circumstanse, spare thought and some professional concideration for other advisers who have other issues they have to deal with, and have had many many years of experience (CPD along the way) and multiple diplomas etc...you say just get on with it, where does it stop ? This is madness, I remember before the FSRA came in, I then thought that was massive enough, (I do agree with it) but then come FOFA, which should have been in the FSRA, what the hell is reasonable basis ? Thats crazy and never understood that, as I thought it was ALWAYS about BID, which is a relatively new concept apparantly!
There has been many opportunities to lift the education bar in the last 15 years.... you could blame teh FPA and AFA for not settling on a unified designation, yet there's the FPA's, CFP and AFA's, FChLP and ChLP. That there, is created a devision amongst the adviser community. Advisers livelyhood and mental wellbeing is not for the politicians to pay chess with. Not everone's personal and business curcumstances are the same as yours.

I'd be happy to put my real name in but dont for the same reason most others dont. I dont wish to be singled out by self excusing old hacks who resent having to do the necessary work and instead bleat on about how it was never required by the professional bodies. Well fat lot of good those idiots did us. They were not the example to follow. I think you only need look at the other comments to know you are in the self justifying minority. We have all had challenges in life, families, businesses, sick wives etc, etc. The difference is professionals find reasons to strive for better standards while others make excuses why they cant meet them.

Sorry, the line in the sand has been drawn and all advisers/future advisers have known for a while what the barriers to entry are. If you want to continue, then get the study done. If not, you perhaps should have already started making alternative plans and working on your succession plan. The profession needs to move forward

I understand the sentiment here but I don't agree with it. We've known about the education requirements since 2019 which means we all had 7 years to work out a plan for the future. A 60 year old in 2019 would be Age Pension age before the education standards apply, so retirement would have been firmly on the cards already by 2026.

Contrary to some comments above, industry research shows that most long term advisers had already done additional study prior to 2019, so their bridging requirements are far less than a 3 year degree.

I have no problem farewelling Advisers who have been in the industry for more than 20 years and haven't upskilled from a basic Dip. FP. Quite frankly this small group are not at the standard expected of a profession.

The problem appears to illegal retrospectivity applied to existing advisers: "New Entrants and Existing Advisers are required to complete a bachelor or higher or equivalent qualification. FASEA’s approved list includes a list of approved current and historical degrees offered by Higher Education Providers and will be updated on an ongoing basis, as additional courses are approved." I am 69 and need to work till 80 to pay off mortgages, I have BEc 1983, MBA 1999, Master of Finance 2004, Master of Financial Law 2011 - none of which comply with the new FASEA’s approved list, Legislation "Corporations (Relevant Providers Degrees, Qualifications and Courses Standard) Determination 2020" dated 1 January 2020 in what appears to illegal retrospectivity. Regrettably, Politicians do what Treasury tells them to do, otherwise they do not get the money for their pet projects, e.g., $60 billion in North Atlantic submarines that need nuclear propulsion to protect Australia.

Well that’s great that you have 11 years left in the industry, so you better get to it so you don’t have to hand your license in in 4 years

Ross, you're in a far better position than many Advisers as you only have to study two bridging courses (including Ethics).
The minimum that any existing Adviser can get away with is one course. Even those who were fortunate enough to have studied an approved degree are required to undertake a bridging course in Ethics.

You Sir have gone well and truly above and beyond and should be respected and lauded as such. The regulators need to apply some sadly lacking logic to your exact situation because a Bachelors Degree in Financial Planning did not exist back then. If it had, then I am certain you would have completed it.

Does anyone understand, Legislation should be prospective so Law-abiders have the opportunity to change conduct to comply with new Law going forward into the future, but retrospectivity is nasty and abusive for what? Therefore, retrospective requirements to take away my 2 AFSLs maintained since 2010, in 2026 only serves politics, it does not serve clients with $100 million under advice. Politics takes no account of accumulated experience in working with clients where we complied with FASEA ethics for more than 20 years before it was written into Law. Isn't that funny ?

Is it funny that FASEA is stacked with Education Psychologist in Behavioural Finance, but ASIC uses breaches of the financial services Laws to ban Financial Advisers, so who is blowing who's trumpet? Then, after passing the FASEA exam, have our PI insurance premiums gone down? PI insurers should ask for a copy of our FASEA Certificates and reduce our premiums by 50%. Then ASIC after we record the passing of the FASEA exam, should stop imposing its INDUSTRY LEVY on Financial Advisers from the date the exam was passed, as an incentive to pass the FASEA exam, in positive value in favour of FASEA Standard 12 " ... in the public interest". Positive values should be applied, instead of further abuse on Financial Advisers, where politicians bad habits are to pass "single issue" Legislation in ignorance of the broader scope of qualitative legal research.

He only needs to complete about 6 months of work??? Get with the times clown

Honestly, I'm just sick to death of hearing the bleating about how older advisers shouldn't have to do the study. As Big Trev says above, the writing has been on the wall about education standards for a long time.

When, in my early 40's, I decided to transition from paraplanning to advising I went and got my degree. I did it while holding down a full-time job, raising a young family, and battling health issues. I did it because it was very obvious to me even then that this is what would be required.

To have made that sacrifice and be now sitting here in my late 40's listening to the whining about the requirement is just plain old insulting. Just get on with it, or make plans to get out.

Being over 65 and having completed all necessary hurdles including the Masters at the age of 60, I would be extremely pissed off if an attempt to grandfather exceptional advisers over age 60. I've spent hundreds of hours in study time over the years and have made personal sacrifices to ensure that I am up to current speed. Why on earth should allowances be made for those who have not done the hard yards? If they were so exceptional, they would have had the common sense and foresight to evaluate their position. I sympathise for those planners who do not have the confidence to tackle the necessary hurdles, but if I could do it and I struggled, so could they.

The industry is so conflicted and so stuffed that we can't have people who are considered "hangers on". You're either on the train or off the train...I was once very much in favour that Advisers of a certain age and experience should be peer reviewed by a self determinating body. I don't feel that way now. Unfortunately, at the Royal Commission it was considered following the appearance of the FPA/AFA our industry was deemed incapable of being self regulating. I still see the conflict that still exist at the FPA and Advisers making choices around licensing and use of products, that remind me how stuffed this industry is.

Myself having over 20 years of experience I feel Advisers had plenty of time, and getting Education is more about protecting the wider industry, Australians, and your peers (even though it's not needed) and I have completed many courses over my 20 plus years and recently completed a Masters Degree. A lack of education allowed the real crooks to get away with murder, and planners to be easily blamed for their crimes..Advisers that made a decision to operate at minimum levels have been complicit with those crooks. By not getting even a very easy Graduate Diploma, they've been selfish and I'd say complicit in allowing that to happen. Professionals made the time. Selfish advisers just looked at themselves and said what's in it for me, and now they're paying...as is I and my family, life, business, Australians and the industry are all collectively paying for there laziness. So I say stuff them...get on the train or get off.

''A lack of education allowed the real crooks to get away with murder,'' - I think you'll find the vast majority of those sanctioned by ASIC in the last few years had all the education required & had completed the ethical requirements, given many were institutional advisers. It didn't stop them acting poorly. Equating formal education (tick box degrees) with correct behaviours & professionalism is a false premise. Nothing beats good, honest, hard work & time on the ground.

Add new comment