Deakin University Professor, Adrian Raftery, has called out the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) for its “totally unreasonable” continuing professional development (CPD) requirements.
Sharing the University’s submissions to the regulatory body on social media, Raftery said it was “totally unreasonable” for FASEA to expect licensees to comply with the standards by 1 January 2019, merely 20 days after it was released to the public.
“Two years ago when the 1 January 2019 date was set, it seemed quite reasonable… its quite unreasonable now given how late the consultation paper process has been going,” he said.
Raftery said talking with others in the industry, the consensus is that there’s quite a bit of refining left to do as well, particularly in terms of the minimum CPD hour requirements, which he said were “way above” what they should be.
“If you’re currently an adviser that’s not affiliated with a professional body, you have a zero hour requirement each year, and the AFA [Association of Financial Advisers] and FPA [Financial Planning Association] have a benchmark of 30 hours per year.”
Raftery said the regulatory body didn’t leave much room for flexibility or a work-life balance either in terms of completing the required hours.
He said the minimum level for technical competence was understated, and the equivalent figure for ethics was “probably overstated” given the combination of bridging courses, exams and a minimum of nine hours each year on the subject.
“I’d rather someone be technically on top of their game rather than spend nine hours a year on ethical issues,” he said.
Raftery also said the University would like to see a clear pathway for FASEA going forward, and to understand their role beyond the implementation of these regulations.
Comments
Professor Rafterty your comments are justified but put yourself in the position of a CFP.
Even with a higher recognition of learning and experience, we are expected to do 40 hours of CPD points per year or 120 hours over a rolling 3 year period plus it's a requirement for all financial planners to be registered with the Tax Practitioners Board (TPD) who expect us to do another 20 hours of CPD a year.
60 hours a year in all.
Fail to meet either one of those requirements and you are out of business.... assuming you have time to meet all the other compliance requirements now imposed on participants in the industry.
Do you think there is a not so hidden agenda here ?
Well I was a CFP til they elected to ...
Anyway, I did make mention in my submission ...
"With a large number of relevant financial providers likely to hold dual or multiple accreditations, there is a strong likelihood that 80-90 hours of minimum CPD would need to be completed which may prove unviable for them when considering both time and cost. At a time when it is expected that between 5,000 to 8000 advisers are expected to leave the industry by 31 December 2023 (Heggen, Kerry, Raftery and Singh 2015), there needs to be a reduction in barriers that encourages advisers to leave the financial planning profession and seek alternative disciplines as a career path."
I hope you did something similar in your submission.
I’ll be around in 2024 - at $1,100 per hour. But of course the next step in the headlock for fee-for-service is what is “fair and reasonable.” Guarantee my determination won’t be valid. Industry Funds for All!
Hey Alleycat, the 20 hours TPB is not on top of your normal CFP hours, just do the online courses that meet the requirements for both and you'll still only need to do your 40 hours.
Aleycat, not really a secret agenda. A former high ranking official in the industry superannuation space once said quite publicly that once they finish off financial planning self managed superannuation funds are next. Think how tough it would be if there is a change of Government next year.
Let’s name names. Garry Weaven.
Exact quote by Garry Weaven ““I tell you one thing: once we get this commission thing [FOFA] out-of-the-way, we are coming after self-managed super”
of course the link to that article is now dead.
Which is exactly ASIC's current stance and direction of 'investigations' - SMSF's and trying to prove their evil, like the lies they told in their report to bring in LIF. ASIC and ISA are aligned in their agendas, both are corrupt and politicized biased toppers
@ Brett H,
You are not correct !
That has changed.
Most CFP/CPD programs do not provide adequate educational CPD hours to satisfy the TPB
You have to make declare annually to the TPB which your Licensee should be able to validate that you have done their required CPD hours.
You're in for a rude surprise if you think otherwise.
I'm a director of an AFSL, so I have to be up to date on this ever changing stuff.
Shows how little Adrian Raftery knows - everyone has a CPD requirement under the Corporations Act 2001 s912A(1)(e) and RG146.14.
Why complain nothing will change. Do what I do I outsource my cpd on airtasker. For the cost of the standard 1 hour financial planning consultation fee someone on airtasker will do it for you. Work smarter not harder
Add new comment