FPA urges FASEA to remove uncertainty on designations

3 April 2019

The Financial Planning Association (FPA) has urged the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) to publish a status list of the professional designations it has been asked to recognise.

In a submission filed with the FASEA this week, the FPA chief executive, Dante De Gori thanked the authority for recognising its Certified Financial Planning (CFP) designation but has reminded it that the FPA has sought further recognition of the designation.

“The FPA welcomes the recognition of its 5-unit Certified Financial Planner designation,” the FPA submission said. “Certified Financial Planners have completed specialised training and are recognised around the world as the highest designation for financial planners.”

Related News:

“The FPA notes that it has also applied for FASEA to recognise past iterations of the Certified Financial Planner coursework and looks forward to these being included in future legislative instruments,” it said.

“The FPA also notes that there remain some pathways in the FPS0001 Education Pathways Policy Statement that are not reflected in the legislative instrument and these should be included in the next amendment,” the FPA submission said.

“As FASEA continues to assess applications to recognise professional designations and courses, there remains some anxiety among financial planners who are yet to know if their qualifications and designations will be recognised,” it said. “FASEA might wish to consider publishing a status list of applications that it has received and its progress against assessing them to ensure planners are aware of ongoing work and to reduce uncertainty.”  

Recommended for you




You can bet that all those who did the whole DFP8 program prior to 2003 via Deakin University to gain CFP status will consider that so- called designation that the FPA has been ripping those members off in annual membership fees, will not be renewing after FASEA decides the designation was completely worthless.
I wonder if there is a case for misrepresentation by the FPA.

Why, well the FPA should have anticipated this could happen, just like a financial planner should anticipate a change in client circumstances, investment philosophy, risk profile and have crystal ball to cover every eventuality over a 15-20 year period.

I know Dante needs to grovel to FASEA because they are all powerful and unaccountable.

But let's not pretend that allowing only 2 credits for a 5 subject financial planning course at AQF 8 level is deserving of thanks. It will force many highly qualified financial planners to pay for more courses at organisations associated with FASEA Board members. It is worthy of a corruption inquiry.

Add new comment