FASEA warned on over-complication
One hundred and ninety-three of the Financial Planning Association’s (FPA’s) existing practitioner members hold foreign qualifications and the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) should not move to unduly complicate their status, according to the FPA.
In a submission filed with FASEA this month, the FPA said that while those 193 practitioner members indicated they held a foreign Bachelor or higher degree, it was worth noting that it was a condition of FPA membership that they also needed to be RG146 compliant.
The FPA said that, in these circumstances, all 193 of the members had also completed a minimum of a Diploma of Financial Planning gained in Australia with many also having completed a Graduate Diploma, Master or the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) Program in Australia.
The FPA submission said it was concerned about the reliance on a definition of related degree for transitioning existing advisers to the new education standard, including those with foreign qualifications, as it was at risk of creating a system that is complicated, inefficient and costly to administer.
It said such an approach also overlooked the evolution of financial planning education and the valid and advice specific past education of existing advisers.
“The proposed approval process for existing adviser foreign qualifications also ignores the fact that existing advisers with a foreign qualification are individuals who are currently authorised to provide advice in Australia,” the FPA submission said.
“Many individuals in this category (that is an existing adviser with a foreign qualification) have been providing clients with financial advice based on the Australian legal systems for tax, superannuation, social security, and investments, licensed to provide such financial advice, and meeting the Australian requirements, for most of their careers.”
“They are not individuals who are new to this country or wanting to relocate to and provide financial advice in Australia sometime in the future. They have been living in Australia and licensed to provide financial advice based on the Australian laws and systems for years, even decades. They are existing advisers transitioning to the new education standards.”
Recommended for you
As the industry navigates the fallout from recent product failures, two major AFSLs have detailed their APL selection process and relationship with research houses, warning a selection error could “destroy” a licensee.
The impending retirement of financial advisers in their 50s could see the profession face significant succession challenges over the coming decade and younger advisers may not be the answer.
With a third of AFSLs being solo advisers, how can they navigate key person risk and ensure they are still attractive propositions for buyers when it comes to their succession planning?
A quarter of advisers who commenced on the FAR within the last two years have already switched licensees or practices, adding validity to practice owners’ professional year (PY) concerns.
