FASEA a barrier for women staying in the industry

Continuing education requirements from the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) will make it difficult for women who want to stay in the industry while starting a family, according to Synchron.

Speaking at the House of Representatives Standing Committee for Economics, Synchron independent chair, Michael Harrison, said continuing education and professional development requirements would make it difficult for women to stay up-to-date if they had taken time out of the industry.

“A lady usually will at some point in time look to get married and have children but to stay in the industry she needs to maintain her continuing education,” Harrison said.

Related News:

“She needs to stay current with everything that is going on. Just looking at the situation at Synchron, every four months we run a professional development day that runs a full day to bring people up to date.

“We also run a fortnightly Zoom catch-up, which includes a compliance section, so they know what’s going on – it’s very hard for a woman staying home who is raising kids to stay current with all these things.”

Harrison said Synchron had a “reasonable” percentage of women who were advisers and at one point almost 40% of its Queensland advisers were women.

“That might have dropped off a bit since the FASEA recommendations,” Harrison said.

“Personally, I’d like to see more women [in the industry] because I find they have more empathy, and especially because we have more and more single females, for whatever reason, who are in that 50-plus section looking to retirement.”




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

When politicians ignore common sense politics, I can understand the temptation to try identity politics instead.

In March 2019, I, with others, personally warned Stephen Glenfield of FASEA of the difficulty women advisers will face because of their CPD requirements and he was dismissive of our advice to reconsider the FASEA approach. He was dismissive to the extent that consultation was in name only and did not appear to be a genuine attempt to seek input that would assist FASEA.

That's ethics for you.

So why so hard for the ladies constantly banging in about equality. Men have many home care responsibilities as well. Suck it up girls, that's what the blokes have to do or find another profession.

Wow, spoken like a true arsehole. Your wife must be so, so proud.

Wow, Felix that is so insensitive of you. You haven't recognised his inherent right to be emotionally vulnerable and express his feelings, even if it doesn't coincide with your views. You also totally ignored the likely ethnical & sociological background context in which he may have been raised during his formative years, hence shaping his view on the world, making his statement as valid as anyone else's in this forum.

Given your directed personal attack and use of a derogatory expletive in typifying him, I think you have your own biases and anchoring issues that you clearly need to address. These issues in them-self can lead to a narrow-sighted, self-centred, bigoted vision of the world, in which the female feels vindicated to perpetually play the victim card with an accompanying illusionary belief that they alone retain the sole right over martyrdom, hence never acknowledging let alone rationally discussing contrary views or other person's emotional or mental plights.

This nation-wide predilection of 'male-bashing' is prevalent throughout today's 'modern Australian females', believing they have an inherent entitlement to freely use gender-discriminatory phrases like "mansplaining" or 'toxic-masculinity' to belittle and nullify the relevance of the opposite sex, believing there is a valid unequal gender-based prerogative or dispensation that justifies any verbal abuse, no matter how prejudiced, inequitable or intolerant it may be.

Rather than making a valid gender-neutral argument, by calling into question his personal moral attributes and making broad assumptions around his personal relationship and again victimising a potential female spouse (unwillingly it should be noted, if there is one), you have again displayed your gender-identity biases and sexism.

Perhaps the article should not be calling for a lowering of the FASEA Ethics CPD requirements for women, but rather based on you exemplifying the typical modern self-focused self-pitying jaundiced permissive female view of the world, perhaps a doubling of the requirements compared to men to make up for the inherent inability to truly care or open yourselves up to alternate perspectives and views of a very equally harsh and challenging world.

And yes, I easily blitzed the FASEA exam and topped the compulsory Ethics module with ease not to mention easily complete the ongoing CPD in this area, via my ever-so well balanced and ethical views :)

I'm getting the pop corn. Your move Felix.

Resounding silence from Felix... crickets chirruping quietly in the background. Disappointment as the popcorn goes cold. Damn.

MuliebrousAncho....

That is an impressive effort.

Just curious. What evidence do you have that can demonstrate that you "easily blitzed" the FASEA exam?

If no evidence is forthcoming, would it then be fair to suggest that the term "easily blitzed" can also be described as "passed" or perhaps "passed on first attempt."?

Would it also be reasonable to conclude given your use of the phrase, "via my ever-so well balanced and ethical views" may not be a fair statement due to the embellishment arguably made in your description of passing the FASEA exam?

Normally you come to MM and get depressed. This is actually entertaining.

No, you are correct, not easily. I admit an unethical exaggeration for ethos effect. (Does that make me unethical for exaggerating, or ethical for admitting I exaggerated?)

Truth be told, I verily excreta my pants before, during and up to results being posted of the exam, due to the utter nonsensical process, non-specific prior guidance, illogical breadth of exam subject matter and commercially unrealistic 'closed book' status for the duration. (Corrupted logos? "We must teach you lying & untruths are bad and only give advice in areas you know. Now here's an exam with no resources on areas you don't normally deal with, take a guess on 30% of the answers". Highly ethical proposition!).

Yes, passed first attempt at the second ever sitting of that particular form of torture. Interesting that the world's greatest evils are always branded, packaged and sold as virtuous and beneficial to the accepting mindless masses; it's only ever the victims that experience the truth (akin to dictatorships starting with "The People's Republic of ...")

Hence mandatory ethics exam and insane level of ongoing pedagogic requirement of formal CPD hours, under duress and threat of loss of licence is in truth the antithesis of the virtues and fairness they're purportedly exhorting and enforcing - irrespective of gender.

And astute, Max, the 'ever-so well balanced and ethical views' was intentionally tongue in cheek, showing the hypocrisy of making purposely inflammatory remarks but somehow wanting to maintain the delusional postulation that one's views are based in a doctrine of understanding, fairness and equality to all.

Haha alright, I'll pay that.

Been fun. I like the way you write and I'd keep this going. Unfortunately the reality is I must use my time to write file notes instead. You know.... to avoid being subjected to other departments who too hold 'virtuous' persuasions.

Ciao Max, yes definitely keep those files clean, ASIC has no doubt on the endless world-wide harm we planners can cause with a single misplaced comma.

Great moniker btw, has inspired me to watch the movie. I'll keep an eye out for your comments in other articles.

Wonderdog you sound jaded. I’m assuming ur a poor hard done bloke? Kids? Partnered or just fed up with perceived inequality from
The upper dog? Tell us about your home care, child care, household maintenance, cooking, present buying, homeschooling, parent care, home mental load responsibility responsibilities? Plenty of female advisers are curious.

Oh wonder dog has life been tough for you as a bloke? Share with us your misfortune and responsibilities of parenting, home care, homeschooling, parent care, family household mental load, emotional intelligence not to mention your endless opportunities of promotion above the glass ceiling . Plenty of female advisers eager to know

Curious, I am not wonder dog but i note you replied twice, clearly got you incensed and obviously instead of being under pressure, you have too much time on your hands if you're able to just bang on and jaw flap all those menial points about how poorly done by females are. Shouldn't you be utilising your scarce amounts of precious time to be studying your FASEA CPD requirements which was what the article was about, or better still, in the kitchen making your man a sandwhich? :) :) :)

Now its getting interesting..

Happily married for 36 years. Married once to a real woman who would not ask for exemption because she's a woman. Is the battle for woman's rights so over you have to demand less equality via PD points? Must be 5th wave feminists botching.

Add new comment