FPA issues careful FASEA blueprint response

The Financial Planning Association (FPA) has opted to keep its powder dry in terms of responding to the latest Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) revised blueprint, opting to work through the detail before stating a firm position.

The release of the revised blueprint, late last Friday, comes at an opportune time for the FPA which is holding its national congress in Sydney this week and having extracted an agreement from the FASEA chief executive, Stephen Glenfield, to address delegates on Thursday.

However, a number of academics and the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) have expressed their reservations about some elements of the blueprint, particularly those elements touching upon the dates attaching to recognition of professional designations.

Related News:

The official FPA statement said that the organisation was keenly aware of the many questions and concerns of its members, the public, and the financial planning profession about the implications of the latest update and was “applying the necessary time and resources to a considered response”.

"We will not be commenting in detail on this latest FASEA update until the right people and the FPA Board specifically has given it due priority attention,” FPA chief executive, Dante De Gori said.

“What I can say is that one of our major priorities is to ensure that further detail is sought from FASEA regarding the practical operation of the proposed Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) and what study/courses will be included in this process,” he said.

“There are more questions that naturally arise out of this Summary of Standards, and we're working closely with FASEA and our members to advocate for what we believe are the right answers, in due course," Dr Gori said.

 

 




Related Content

TAL wins AFA’s Life Company of the Year title

TAL Life has taken out the overall platinum Life Company of the Year award for the second year in a row at the Association of Financial Advisers’ (A...Read more

Advisers facing costs pincer

Dealer groups have begun lifting the fees they charge advisers by as much as 30 per cent to cover off both increased costs and the loss of revenue the...Read more

Tech puts value of advice in question

Addressing a room of financial advisers at the Portfolio Construction Forum’s 2019 Finology Summit yesterday, US-based financial planner, Michael Ki...Read more

Author

Comments

Comments

Business Degree (unrelated) 1994, Diploma of Planning 1999, CFP 2000, 25 years experience. I get 1 credit and still need to do 7 subjects ......What I studied at the time is what was available ......only 6% of planners with over 20 years experience come close to meeting these new rules....JOKE!

I think the longer you have been doing this the worse off you are with the FASEA proposal, Now this might be the objective of FASEA to get rid of the more experienced advisors who aren't prepared to do the study, some commonsense approach needs to applied for the older planners.

Great to see those with an ADFP or CFP given some recognition for their prior learning. But what about those of us with a Grad Dip or Masters in FP, which pre-dates the recent 2011 FPEC list? We raised the bar long before it was compulsory but will now be forced back into study. I have to complete another 4 subjects for God's sake! That's on par with the non-degree qualified advisers with an ADFP and CFP. Those are the very advisers this legislation was designed to bring up to degree standard. They were an embarrassment to our profession. How in God's name can an adviser with a Masters Degree in FINANCIAL PLANNING be thrown in the same bucket?

They are basically saying Financial Planning has changed so dramatically since 2007, that no prior study is useful. This is ridiculous.

Dear FARCEA, I think you miss the point. The system is not being designed to recognize good advisers, it is being designed with the starting premise that all advisers are bad. That is why everyone will need to do the course. If you don't believe me, go and ask for an exemption. Good luck,

@ FARCEA,
Having a Masters degree in FP doesn't make you any more qualified than someone with an Economic qualification or a CFP designation.
If you had any real knowledge of the qualification of a CFP prior to 2004, you would know that in order complete DFP 8 and to pass the 3 hour written exam organised via Deakin University, you also needed to get 75% pass on the assignment or you failed the whole subject.
I'm willing to bet that some of those who got a Masters in FP probably scrapped through with a 50% pass rate.
Some of those old CFP graduates would buy and sell some of your brethren with their knowledge and capability.

@Aleycat. Actually it does.
According to the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) - a Masters degree (AQF9) trumps both an undergraduate degree (AQF7) and the CFP (AQFFA). As someone who has both a MFinPlan and CFP (post 2004) - I can categorically state that the former was the more onerous to obtain due to the level of effort and length of time required. How many advisers do you know that hold a Masters degree versus CFP? 1:5 or maybe 1:10? This isn't a pissing contest Aleycat - a CFP designation will never measure up to a Masters degree despite what the FPA would have you believe.

Only 800 submissions out of some 20,000 advisers registered on ASIC register. Only 4% of advisers could be bothered to get off their butts and write a simple submission. I guess we deserve everything we get.

Seems like advisers are either lazy or are wanting the FPA to rescue them. Question is how is the FPA going in the investigation into Dante De Dori given the concerns made at the Royal Commission in regards to their handling of Sam H? It's been said by Justice Haynes that the FPA is not fit to be a code monitoring body. I would not want the FPA representing myself now to FASEA.

Dear Anne, I think 800 submissions would be enough to cover the topics. I am not convinced that FASEA actually want to engage with anyone.

Is it clear yet that those who completed the 8 subject DFP via FPA/Deakin are getting the 2 credits? If not, what is their rationale given that the current ADFP includes the same 8 subjects? My Diploma of FInancial Planning is 8 subjects...the current Diploma of Financial Planning is 4 subjects...What about the Estate Planning, SMSF, Margin Lending and Direct shares modules...naught...nada. Can I just ask Deakin/approved provider for RPL for the current ADFP or do they have some arbitary rule that says they can only give 50% credit? If it wasnt so serious this would be funny!

Add new comment