25% of degree-qualified advisers are falling short

As many as a quarter of degree-qualified financial planners are facing the cost of further education because their qualifications are not recognised under the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) regime.

That is one of the key findings of Money Management’s survey of adviser intentions in the wake of the FASEA regime, with respondents signalling their deep concern that the FASEA has not gone far enough in appropriately recognising older degrees, even when those degree have been supplemented by other qualifications.

The survey revealed that around six per cent of respondents held “non-relevant” degrees while a further 18 per cent held “non-relevant” degrees as well as diplomas of financial planning and other similar qualifications.

Related News:

A number of respondents have expressed suspicion that the failure to recognise older degrees is owed to the number of academics sitting on the FASEA board, alleging that their education institutions will emerge as major financial beneficiaries form the new regime.

Some respondents said that the time they would need to dedicate to pursuing the necessary study and bridging courses was such that they would be culling lower-value clients, even though those clients would still need advice.

The Money Management survey has confirmed that as many as 30 per cent of advisers are likely to exit the industry because of the FASEA regime, but some advisers have suggested this figure may grow if the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry brings an end to grandfathered commissions.

Recommended for you




Ha, this would have to be the understatement of the year! A diploma of financial services is not approved, a degree in accounting, finance or economics is not approved, the CFP is not approved, past graduate diplomas in financial planning are not approved and even some masters degrees in financial planning are not approved due to sneaky fineprint buried in FASEA's legislative instrument. The real number would be well over 95%

25% does not even seem close to the real figure - I would suggest closer to 90%.

I wonder if the next issue will be the education providers are not able to accommodate the huge number of advisers forced to relearn what they already know. I will make sure I ask many many queries to improve my education. I'm am not going to sit and just relearn what I have known for many years, while paying for the pain.

The survey has confirmed 30% of advisers will leave the industry due to FASEA alone. Wait until they cut risk commissions to zero and force clients to pay for ongoing advice out of their own pocket instead of their super fund. Clients won't pay and advisers leaving the industry would be 75% + as there is no point running a business that cannot make money.

Whilst not approved, suggest you check what is a 'relevant' degree
Not easy to do of course given the lack of information.
100% RobinBris.

The issue has arisen when FASEA used the FPEC register as the basis for approved degrees. The FPEC register was designed to provide the FPA with appropriate candidates for the CFP program, which is ironic seeing as the CFP is not approved. I did a Masters of Financial Planning early and Kaplan provided accelerated subjects in recognition of prior learning, but then they scrapped it part way through because of pressure from the FPA who wanted it to align with the CFP program.

As if I didn't need to be even more depressed and overwhelmed regarding the new FASEA guidelines. Have just sat in on Deakin webinar. Recognition of my prior learning and designation status (Dip FP /CFP) and non-recognised Degree, effectively means I would need to complete a further 5 units of study (credit received of only 3 units RPL). Each unit of study implies around 130-150 hours per unit, with each unit costing over $3,000. After 25 plus years of providing compliant,qualitative and comprehensive advice to clients, is this what I really need and will it materially enhance the quality of Advice provided to my existing and new clients moving forward by attaining a Masters Degree in Fin Planning (other than to increase the costs to serve, which inevitably would need to be passed on to clients). This complete lack of affinity for what we do at the coalface for our clients (Comprehensive Advice Process/BID/Fiduciary Obligations etc) and the experience in being to be able to provide relevant solutions and strategies for our clients, has been cast aside/hijacked to now satisfy political and ASIC agendas. Will I still be around in 2024 - this may depend on some commonsense prevailing over the ensuing period of time.

I too sat in on the Deakin webinar. It was primarily targeted at old lifeys who have never been near a university before. There wasn't much useful info for people looking to supplement prior uni studies. However if your CFP is from the CFP course and not just grandfathered, you may find you "only" need 3 extra units rather than 5. Check out the latest updates on the FASEA website for details. It was disappointing that Raftery refused to address any RPL issues until the end, and then he only answered preprepared Dorothy Dixer questions. I guess Deakin makes maximum bucks from students with minimum RPL.

Deakin is a joke.
It's not a university - it should be correctly branded a Tafe.
I would suggest any most latter day degrees from these factories are inadequate and not be of the same rigour as degrees gain when studying was hard and a money making enterprise.

Add new comment