Advisers should study beyond FASEA requirements

Advisers should study beyond the Financial Adviser Standard and Ethics Authority (FASEA) requirements to capitalise on the predicted increased demand of financial advice. 

Luke Knight, Kaplan head of corporate sales, said the education provider encouraged advisers to continue to study beyond their FASEA requirements.  

“This is a current gap in the industry which we think can only be addressed by those who understand and practice with the right qualifications to support the growth and continuity of the industry,” Knight said. 

Related News:

“It’s [Kaplan’s] opinion that advisers who meet the education sooner and progress beyond it would be positioned to capitalise on the predicted economic upswing in a post-COVID environment, while also being able to make the most of opportunities afforded by the increased demand for financial advice.” 

When it came to study load, Knight said it was most common to see working professionals complete three subjects a year over four years. 

“It’s the ideal time for advisers to build up momentum towards meeting the FASEA education standard,” Knight said. 

“Yes, there’s a fair bit of time to the end of 2025, but it will creep up and we don’t want to sit around waiting until the very end and try to cram in subjects whilst manging businesses.” 

The most popular course taken up was the ethics component, likely to help candidates prepare for the FASEA exam. 

“From the data we have, there is quite of a lot of advisers that have now passed the industry exam plus have completed [the] ethics [subject],” Knight said. 

“A lot of advisers use the ethics [subject] as an exam preparation tool for the industry exam, which was a really great approach.”  

 




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

Is it just me, or is the new format of MyKaplan terrible? I think that it triggers seizures in some people, when you scroll through the articles. The previous format was much better and more educational. What the hell happened to Kaplan?

One may very well question conflicted vested interests?

I am a CFP & FP business owner with over 26 years experience at high level financial planning. Our clients range from mum & dad's to ex-partners of accounting & law firms, CEO's, Founders & CFO's of listed companies, family PAF's, commercial accountants, Uni professors, successful business-people, substantial landholders & agri-sector, and interestingly, other retired financial planners. I've also been on national boards for various AFSL's in differing capacities involving professional standards, investment committees and as a director.

Clearly, we and my knowledge is at least adequate for the task and importantly for the services we offer the clients we choose to take on.

I unfortunately have had to redo a number of subjects due to my formal education not being adequate, according to the arbitrary list the FASEA board (consisting largely of education providers) deemed valid. The 'required study' was through Kaplan.

I can honestly say the chasm between theoretical academia and practical commercial application has never been wider.

While the subjects may provide glimpses of real-world application, they, as most academics do, wallow in self-indulgent waffle and distractive nugatory pedagogy, to the detriment of mercantile application.

Subjects such as 'Client Engagement Skills' prove to be anything but. Words like specious and counter-factual come to mind, as proceeding through this subject, rather than any real tangible inkling or commercially applicable skill in engaging or servicing that a client would appreciate, it instead delves into theoretical concepts around biases; 'cognitive, availability, confirmation, status-quo, regret-aversion etc'.

I therefore strongly question Mr Knight's claim that further education would be of any benefit to either the client or the professional adviser. Having gone through the process, aside from one paragraph in one study manual (around private equities, which I found of use in explaining a specific concept to a client), I can honestly say I have found no benefit whatsoever that prior experience or that great font of knowledge in the sky, "Google", could not have otherwise provided.

Person who sells education courses, thinks Advisers should buy more education courses...... Maybe they need to conduct a needs analysis to determine how much education the adviser needs and recommend the appropriate level of qualification and courses. Maybe it's not in the advisers best interests to complete further kaplan courses - being over educated, which can mean the adviser can take them to the relevant complaints authority and be rewarded with compensation.

Clearly he has a vested interest. But at least he is making a reasoned case, for which advisers can then make their own decisions about additional study.

This is in stark contrast to some other education providers who corruptly used their position on the FASEA Board to force advisers to purchase more education product, often in fields where the adviser had already completed lots of study.

As a bdm with 20 years of experience working with planners - yes more advisers will be needed, but education does not necessarily 'produce' better planners. Of course a good planner must know legislation, strategies, product etc and have been through markets (up and down), but a great planner has two ears and one mouth, has life experience and a calm pleasant demeanour ... not something learned from a book.

Luckily for us, Kaplan can't sell PhDs.

Kaplan obviously have a conflict of interest, but if the industry is going to ever become a Profession, constant learning is part of that.

Add new comment