Govt education proposal backwards step: FPA

The Government’s education proposal to allow financial planners with 10 years of experience to continue practicing without higher education is a backwards step, the Financial Planning Association of Australia (FPA) believes.

Speaking to Money Management, FPA head of policy, strategy, and innovation, Ben Marshan, said the association had a long-held position that there was a need to raise education standards and the proposal was effectively a backways step.

“In saying that it's always been our view, and we advocated to the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority [FASEA], that experience is an important component of demonstrating competence to provide professional financial advice and FASEA didn't do enough to take that into account,” he said.

Related News:

“So, how do you balance taking experience into account and having a high education standard? That's what we're working through with members at the moment.”

Marshan said 60% of FPA members were opposed to any form of exemption for experience and 85% of members thought experience could be taken into account but not a full exemption.

“We're still getting feedback from members, we're still talking to other associations, and we're still talking to academics and trying to understand the issues that are going on,” he said.

“We are supportive of a higher education degree, the kind of comes out of framework, but providing a lot more credit for experience along the way.

“FASEA definitely did not take experience into account in a fair way. They didn't do it in a way that that allowed an experienced financial planner to demonstrate that they were competent to meet the education requirements.”

Marshan noted there was now an opportunity with Treasury looking at the issue and that he did not necessarily believe Treasury would put the proposal out if it was not their intent to implement it.

“I've had a lot of conversations with a lot of associations and I think we're all universally in agreement that while FASEA didn't get 100%, right, they weren't necessarily far off. So, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not necessarily the right outcome either,” he said.

“If all of the associations are in agreement that this proposal is not the right one for the profession, then Treasury might turn around and says ‘well, we propose it’, then the profession says ‘no’. So, Treasury will need to come up with something else.

“I think that's where there's an opportunity to get the right kind of outcomes. I don't know which way it will go. Some days I think it's window dressing and other days, I think, well, there's an option to actually get the right outcome for the profession here as well.”




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

FASEA also didn't provide sufficient credit for prior education. Their range of approved prior study was far too narrow.

Perhaps the best compromise solution is one that doesn't give a blanket exclusion for experience, but does give greater credit for the prior education many experienced advisers will have completed.

How about changing the education standards to require just a Graduate Certificate or equivalent, if the adviser has also completed 400+ hours of accredited CPD. Graduate Certificate equivalents would be 4+ unit AQF 8 level courses such as the CFP Course. (But not the grandfathered CFP designation, which only required a sub degree AQF 6 course). Exemptions from the Ethics subject should also be given for any ethics subjects completed at AQF 7 or higher.

Most experienced advisers would qualify under the above rules without the need to waste time and money on extra courses, and without compromising the spirit of the original FASEA legislation.

Ben, you cannot be serious.
The FPA has touted ever since I can remember, that the CFP designation was the highest recognition an adviser could obtain for professionalism.

Most older CFP holders completed the 8 required subjects administered by Deakin University for the Diploma of Financial Planning.
For those members who think that was a piece of cake, let me remind you that you had to get a pass mark of 75.0% on the last assignment or you failed the subject, irrespective of how well you did in the 3 hour written exam.
Ever since I can remember CFP recipients have had to do 40 hours p.a. of continuing education or 120 hours over any 3 year period.
Those that were not CFP's only had to do 30 hours of CE or 90 hours over 3 years.
Why is there a question mark over education when CFP's have had to do more.

And the FPA hasn't missed those CFP recipients either by nailing them $200 p.a. for a non productive marketing levy.
As a former CFP not once was I ever asked what the CFP designation stood for.
Not once for my $200 CFP marketing levy did I ever receive one inquiry in 18 years as a member of the FPA.
There are plenty of older advisers who would play many of these so called degree qualified advisers off a break and for you Mr Marshan it continues an ongoing trend where no one in the FPA seems to stand up for the rank and file that supported the association over many years.
I expect the exodus of advisers to continue to a point where many will question, why bother being part of the organisation.

it is very common (but erroneous) for professional associations to market their designation as the world's best (there are so many of them and it's hard to differentiate between them and draw a distinction these days). We all know they are mere puffs*.

the CFP(r) actually compares very well to other designations, as you rightly said, it requires a pass of 70% and 75% in the CFPC still which is not easy to achieve.

here is a common sample of how the CFP(r) compares to other designations in Australia :

1. CPA Australia - non-AQF rated internal course, wholly multi-choice. actually (and falsely) marketed as a "comprehensive post-graduate program" see https://content.cpaaustralia.com.au/annualreport-2020 page 68 of 148 under heading CPA program and Certification, note that we have a national policy for regulating higher education awards, it's called the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) and the CPA program is not accredited as an award under the AQF so it's not a postgraduate award and shouldn't be called one.

CPA requires only a pass mark of 50% so lower than the CFP coursework requirement and also the CFPC (75%) & exam which has a pass mark (depending on the cohort) from 65 to 67%.

CPAs usually have very few useful skills and are mostly grinders. Pay rates are reflective of skills in the market.

2. CA Program - Marketed as a pre-eminent accounting designation in Australia. however, it's a 5 Unit graduate diploma, and the smallest of the three accounting bodies in Australia, IPA, has a higher award at AQF9 with more than 3 times the coursework required to complete their program (stage 1, and 2) with 16 units of AQF8 or higher (but obviously a smaller marketing budget).

CA only requires a 50% mark to pass (they have the biggest egos because they know so little and are mostly grinders who work for others, but most aspirational in seeking higher rewards than their ability or talent deserves)

3. CFA - the world's hardest finance designation, yet does not have any behavioral finance content. WOW. I asked a CFA once whether they understood what an Investment Policy Statement, his response, "i just did a 1,000 question bank questions" to pass so mostly a memory test and regurgitation

so you see, people fall for a lot of gimmicks, but overall the CFP compares pretty well with others. Where the FPA is getting wrong is a) professional partner program, the collapse of Dixon Advisory should show them that they need to end this now to be a wholly member-funded body. b) demote the grandfathered CFP's to member status only (they are mostly non-practicing accountants anyway so it doesn't matter)

* mere puff: Advertisements that may contain statements that are exaggerated and obviously untrue, it is unlikely to be taken seriously but young kinds starting out tend to actually believe them to be true.

CFP Mfin plan

With respect , any person who denigrates other recognised Professions to promote their theirs suffers from serious ethical dilemmas.
Blowing out someone else's candle does not make your shine brighter!!

Especially if that individual was unable to perform in the other field.

The discussion is about "TRANSITION", not your ego!!

These are all verifiable and accurate points.

I have a Bachelor of Business with 7 units accepted, from 1993. I have an 8 unit DFP and I have completed the Ethics course. But, despite running my own AFSL since 1997 with no registered comlaints and no PI claims, I have to do 2 further units: "Financial Behaviour and Decision Making" & "Financial Advice Regulation ". Now let's be honest, other than taking me out of my business which is struggling for manpower as it is, the comletion of these 2 units will add no value to me or my clients what-sp-ever. But the 30+ years experience I have will be more than beneficial to all parties concnerned. So before the FPA says "it's a step backwards" in recognising experience, perhaps they should examine the things a little closer. I have done my 40+ hours a year CPD. I have run a business and servieced clients beyond expectastions. I don't have the time or temperament to be "judged" at an academic level by those who have no idea what we do in the real world.

Simone, you sound like a classic example of a well educated adviser who supports the "experience exemption" because they have been unfairly denied sufficient credit for their previous studies.

not at all, her degree in marketing & management from 1993, probably didn't cover the core knowledge requirements sufficiently enough to be granted an RPL, and hence the stated gaps have been identified which to me appear to be correct.

furthermore, there is generally an acceptance broadly that RPL can only be awarded within a specified time frame. this is also correct and makes sense because knowledge gets outdated, especially in our domain of practice.

it is commonly known that the period to be granted exemption for studies completed prior is 10 years, this is where the original FASEA stance came from. No university will grant exemptions for the study done more than 10 years ago that I know of in Australia.

it's an opportunity to fill the gap. you cannot demand credit for study you haven't done.

I have done more than 5 degrees in Australia, recognition for prior learning is generally an agreed principle at virtually all universities and they are pretty good at it. the only exception is the Group of 8 (elite uni's) who usually do not accept other universities quality as being as good as theirs, but have an agreement amongst themselves to give Credit to each other https://go8.edu.au/study/credit-transfer

she just needs to get on with it and do the study.

cfp m fp

"I have done more than 5 degrees in Australia"

Congratulations !
Impressive? In what fields please? Practical experience in these assumingly related fields adds up to how many years?

With respect, is this a big ego thing because it is beginning to appear that way, simple because you refuse to deal with the issue: Transition.
Abrasive comments do not enspire or enliven a calm logical process.

It's always the same arrogance from people who believe they have nothing to learn from completing Masters level FP units. I suggest you try it with an open mind and see where you end up

It's always the same level of arrogance from people who have dodged education their whole lives, and after being forced into it think the mickey mouse course they completed at a glorified TAFE is the pinnacle of higher education.

Some of us got well educated long ago and have better things to do with our time and money than purchase a mickey mouse course just because Walt Disney was on the FASEA board.

I could not agree more. let me demonstrate.

according to the AQF framework, see, https://www.aqf.edu.au/aqf-levels

a bachelors degree graduate, "will have broad and coherent knowledge and skills for professional work and/or further learning"

a masters degree graduate, "will have specialized knowledge and skills for research"

given, we work as specialist professionals, the minimum standard for entry into the profession should be a bachelor's degree but we should really have a master's for professional practice because we require specialized knowledge.

big difference between broad & coherent knowledge and Specialist knowledge. if an assessment of your educational qualifications has identified gaps don't be embarrassed, it's an opportunity to fill them to be more well-rounded.

it's not about the individual planner anymore, it's about the profession, earning the public's trust, and being held in high esteem by our peers, and other stakeholders. Read articles relating to Dixon Advisory in the AFR and see how you feel about being a financial planner, and then think about how a reasonable person on the street would feel as to whether or not they should trust a financial planner after reading the same.

I have done the ethics subject 4 times (for various other degrees). still learned a lot. a lot in the attitude. and it's tax-deductible under s 8.1 (1)(a) (positive limb) of the ITAA 97.

so let's get on the job, there is a profession waiting for us.

WOW! Calling me arrogant without knowing much about me. My priority is the commitment and service to my clients after almost 2 years without face to face appointments. At over 50 years of age, I know how to run my business ethically, professionally, and provide serice and advice within the frameworks and legal parameters required. I have no interest in studying and spent over 4 years at Uni and a further 3 doing DFP. I want to spend my down time with my family. The one I put off having while I studied and built my business. I want to nurture the business and the client relationships I have worked so hard in for 29 years. But go ahead, get personal, call me arrogant. And when there are no experienced advisers left in the next GFC or stock market crash, all those certificates and PGD qualifications can be the parachute you use when you jump out the window because you can't cope with managing downside markets and client welfare. Becuase experience is earned over years or hard work, not awarded on the basis of some books and exams.

it is ARROGANT!

it is not just about you. it is about public trust, it is about our profession, it is about the perception with which we are held by the regulator, the government, and various other stakeholders. It is about serving clients, ethically by NOT JUST YOU BUT AN ENTIRE PROFESSION! IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU! OR YOUR PUNY BUSINESS. IT'S ABOUT THE HARD-WORKING ORDINARY AUSTRALIANS WHO WANT TO BE ABLE TO TRUST A PROFESSION TO DELIVER FOR THEM A POSITIVE OUTCOME WITH THEIR MOST PRECIOUS ECONOMIC RESOURCES.

WE ARE TRYING TO FORGE A PROFESSION HERE. YOU ARE HOLDING ME AND EVERYONE ELSE BACK. JUST DO THE FRIGGING STUDY. or LEAVE

I sympathise with your frustration regarding this situation. You need to see it from their point of view - these people have 5-10 years max left in the industry, after that they don't give a hoot what happens to the industry or its constituents. It's entirely self serving no matter how many times they say "it takes me out of my business yada yada yada".

I finished a MFinPlan from scratch with no exemptions in 2 years whilst working full time with a WAM of 80. I also have an approved degree so it wasn't even required of me, but for the benefit of myself and my clients I did it. I learnt a lot of things that I did not usually have exposure to such as derivatives, aged care and complex trust/SMSF scenarios.

I can't tell you how much disdain I have for people who wholeheartedly believe they're better than studying and have no need for it. The arrogance to believe that is immeasurable.

I draw much satisfaction from the majority of polls run by associations showing that most don't support this exemption rule. A rule that threatens to be much, much worse for the industry than anything FASEA or FoFA ever did to us.

If that is how you treat other advisers, you will never be a Professional. Perhaps it is people who beahve like you, and don't respect the opinions of others, who should leave and stop filling the world with your anger and attitude. Disgusting. Shame on you and your mouth.

Your comments are becoming more and more delusional!!
Quote: "WE ARE TRYING TO FORGE A PROFESSION HERE. YOU ARE HOLDING ME AND EVERYONE ELSE BACK. JUST DO THE FRIGGING STUDY. or LEAVE"

Really? No one is holding anyone back! That is an absurd, confused, illogical comment! There are FP Practices that have been going for 40 years very successfully.
Your comments are perverse and contorted. Do you know the meaning of the word "WOKE"?

Financial practices like Dixon Advisory were going for 40 years too Craig?

Me. Me. Me. Me. Me.

You, like many advisers over the years have benefitted from incredibly lax regulation whilst having the opportunity to make a motser doing so. It is time to take this slap on the wrist and put an incredibly small amount of effort (two units) in to make up for the failures of the past. Respect is garnered by those doing the right thing, not necessarily what is easy.

One who has no interest in studying has no interest in learning. And without learning the brain atrophies. The immense change that occurs every single year in this industry cannot possibly be learned through the joke that is CPD. Again, believing wholeheartedly that you have nothing to learn is inherently arrogant. I'm sorry, study undertaken decades ago just is not relevant any more. Just as a Financial Planning degree taken in the U.S is not in any way relevant to our industry.

It is my experience that those advisers yelling from the rooftops that they are too smart to go back and study are the ones actually scared of undertaking formal study again because they are afraid of failing.

With respect "optimist",

I find your comments ,attitude, and arguments lacking in any form of conducive persuasion.

"YOU", are not the Industry . you are just a small "cog" trying to be a "BIG" cog. It would be fascinating to see critic your business. you will note I did not call it a "Professional" practice. You comments are not becoming of any Professional person.
Have the intestinal fortitude to state your name!
No?
I did not think so. An assassin hiding in the shadows throwing barbs at other true Professionals!!
Pretty disgusting actually. Now give all a pathetic excuse!!
No more time here as it is totally wasted!!

I keep my identity private so as to keep my professionalism intact. Entering heated debates in good faith is a hobby of mine and even though I espouse the same opinions publicly, arguing on an internet forum is not good for business no matter how righteous the topic.

In any case, yes, I understand I am not the industry. I am ashamed of such an industry. Change does not happen without pain unfortunately and it is high time for most advisers to sacrifice a small amount of time and effort in order to, no matter how symbolic it may be, make up for the sins of the past.

What sins you may ask? I'm sure you were always the bastion of client care that you claim to be... or maybe you did any of the following:
- Put clients into funds with incredible exit fees.
- Intentionally kept grandfathered clients in their existing funds and did not contact them on purpose.
- Accepted egregiously high commission rates on early insurance policies.
- Accepted egregiously high commission rates on investment products.
- Failed to hear the warning about structured products paying such ridiculous commission pre-GFC.
- Clipped contribution fees from client's hard earned deposits.

Now, if you hand on heart can say you never did any of these things then I commend you. But I can guarantee the majority of the cohort complaining about these education standards cannot.

With respect, Optimist, you appear to have many, maybe unresolved, issues amist you contrition of past actions. It is not for me to herald judgement your past actions.

However, I am even more unlikely to follow your advice with respect to what is and how to attain a Professional Practice in the future. This comment : " But I can guarantee the majority of the cohort complaining about these education standards cannot...." is of concern to begin with. I am not sure whether you look for contrition for yourself or justification by implicating others.

I will leave it at that. Thank you and Good luck!!

Funnily enough I was not practicing in the industry for long before the advent of FOFA in 2012. So no, I have not engaged in such actions whatsoever and expressed discontent immediately for what were industry wide practices at the time.

So, if you remove the argument against me being contrite where is your refutation of my claims?

Implication of others is required in order to expose why our industry is seen the way it is and why the changes to education standards are justified. I don't only just care about my clients, I care about those advised by others and even more for the people who were burnt by advisers of yesteryear and will never seek advice again. They are the people who need to be convinced of the changes made and it won't be done by loose grandfathering policy.

Finally, with respect Sir, ( I no longer see optimism in any of your words), your comments only serve to discourage, divide and fractionate rather than motivate or inspire.
By your own words:
1. " Entering heated debates in good faith is a hobby of mine and even though I espouse the same opinions publicly, arguing on an internet forum is not good for business no matter how righteous the topic."
So, I glean even though you are opinionated and guilt-ridden and contrite, there is no confidence within you to display it: except for contempt of others.........." I am ashamed of such an industry. Change does not happen without pain unfortunately and it is high time for most advisers to sacrifice a small amount of time and effort in order to, no matter how symbolic it may be, make up for the sins of the past......"
With the zeal of a evangelist, the condemnation of a high priest, the illusory superiority of a "relatively' inexperienced person, you list the "sins of the past".
Extraordinary!!
All to the end where you pontificate judgement on what you see as the "sins" of others , ..."But I can guarantee the majority of the cohort complaining about these education standards cannot...."

You avidity and fervour to judge others as shown here .............."Implication of others is required in order to expose why our industry is seen the way it is and why the changes to education standards are justified. I don't only just care about my clients, I care about those advised by others and even more for the people who were burnt by advisers of yesteryear and will never seek advice again. They are the people who need to be convinced of the changes made and it won't be done by loose grandfathering policy................"
resembles the 'evangelicals belief in the centrality of the conversion or "born again" experience in receiving salvation'..

With respect, your comments and opinions are just that, as our mine.

However, your comments will be seen for what they are: judgemental, possibly compunctious, both alienating and schismatic. Perhaps, instead of stepping on others to uplift oneself , you relook at your Moral and Ethical compass.
Your Professional" inexperience lessons the effects of your evangelical zeal.
Please, try to think, and let these final comments sit for some time.

FPA and govt. are looking for a "TRANSITION" methodology for the betterment of both client, industry and advisor.

In other news, Industry Super increased FUM yet again, competition from the Banks eliminated and Financial Planning numbers decrease - those remaining on interested in prestige.

Product provides happy to assist members with Advice for a fee charged to members.

Continue on with education argument - it is a good distraction and should help assist keeping Financial Planners away from clients and numbers down - leaving Product Providers to have more security in maintain FUM.

So before these recent announcements you were planning to leave the industry, and those clients, because you didn't want to do these TWO "micky mouse" units? Two really easy units, probably taking up 1 weekend per subject, and as licensee stuff you do every day, stuff you really shouldn't need to read the material for a pass grade, 50% price discounted, and you were going to give it all up after 29 years. I can see given the effort required, (ZIP) considering the reward & opportunity for your peers, (huge) how some might ask you to re consider.

I Will do it if I have to but based on time constraints, the fact that I am now down 1 adviser as he has left the industry and am dealing with the demands of 2 years without face to face, I would prefer to not do the "mickey mouswe" units, but focus on keeping up to date with relevant information and study. You people act like these degrees are the measure of knowledge, they have no value in actually doing the job. The 29 years experience I have, 29 years, CPD and perfect record should go somewhere in the mix. I, like so many others, have put so much into the Financial Planning world. I sat on the FPA Disciplinary board, I sat on the FPA education / CPD Committee. I have put in plenty and feel like all beauce I came into the job 29 years ago I am being forced to go back to study. I don't have to like it, I don't have to support it, I don't have to believe in its value. I have the right to believe in the acknowledgement of experience and I have the knowledge of the impact taking me out of my boutique business will have on my staff and clients, not to mention my family. Being a working mother is hard being a working mother running an AFSL is harder. Perhaps talk to some female, experienced advisers with school age children before you carry on like a piece of paper makes you better at your job. Like I said, I put off having a family to complete my study and grow my business. I will do it if I have to, but the whole point was for expression of ipinion, and I hapen to value experience over classroom and wasted time. I am happy to learn when that learning has value, but not the so called "mickey mouse" subjects and the nonesense that has been set out.

I totally agree with your comments.

There are some who may have "5 degrees" but still remain uneducated!!
Best to ignore these "trumpian egotists and narcissists "!!! Their objective to put others down to hide their own insecurities.

One of the parts of the Treasury consultation paper that hasn't received a lot of attention is that the criteria for the qualification pathways are proposed to be expanded as well, so although depending on the prior credits there may still be a requirement to complete 2 units, you would be able to choose them from a much wider range of subjects so could find something that was more relevant.

Well, i suppose the FPA membership income will reduce by 40%.
SO, which positions go? Oldies first?

So let me get this straight.
Ben Marshan states the FPA are talking with academics regarding this matter!!!!
How many times in the last decade have we had the paid intervention of academics providing their skewed and ideological views on financial services that have been revealed as nothing more than cash for comment paid by self interest groups?
This is an absolute slap in the face of loyal, qualified and experienced FPA members who have supported that organisation for decades.
Asking some left wing biased, career based academic who has no experience whatsoever in financial services, let alone in the real world of business and client relationships is an absolute insult.
Why on earth do these organisations keep running back to so called academics for the answers to the questions?
Oh, I know, so they can remove themselves from the responsibility by claiming that
“ a study has shown”………
This is about as pathetic as it gets.
If you give an academic $15,000 to write a submission, they will find the answer you are looking for alright.

What a mess they created. I still remember when they were boasting they "gifted" (their words) the meaning of a Degree to FASEA. Their submission to FASEA recommended a Bachelor of Commerce should be worth 20 points out of 100, prior experience 20 points, and a Bachelor of Financial Planning issued by a select group that paid fees to the FPA owned FPEC should be worth 100 points. Any more bright ideas fellas? Maybe stick to selling conferences, webinars and post nominals for people with no education.

Here we go again!! A person with both limited experience in any other field making definitive statements on the best method to "TRANSITION" the FP Industry. With respect Mr Macdonald, you academic record is clear.
It appears you insist on reinventing the wheel without knowledge or Research on the method used by other professions.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia had a 'similar' educational pathway if you care to look. In the 50s and 60s a person could become a Chartered Accountant ,without a University degree, by completing the Institute's internal course. It did evolve into a University degree and the PY, or Professional Year. All, I repeat, ALL, Chartered Accountants know how hard that PY is. If you take it lightly it will eat you.

There have been many Managing Partners of big 8 and then big 4 Firms who achieved their status vias the "old" method before the current degree method became the established model.

The FPA is "TRANSITIONING", and common sense would suggest the FPA determine a course which reflects the successful transition of other Professions.
With respect, I am sick and tired of the scaremongers and fearmongers of pontificating their "Opinion" whilst their own qualifications do not portray broad experience or knowledge of the path other Professions have followed.

The key word is TRANSITIONING. It makes little sense to kill off all the "old" experienced practitioners, in the rush to establish a pathway to University based first step education followed by a PY.

Craig Offenhauser B.Fin. Admin; M.Taxation(Syd); ACA; FCPA; SPAA;FANZIIZ;CFP; FTA. JP(Qual);AIST.

Agree with you Craig. Isn't it funny how those who have a valued opinion on what inexperienced polititains and bureucrats are doing to our livelihoods are willing to put our names on our posts, but those who are rude and nasty in their replies hide behind screen names. I don't recall when my GP had to go back and get another medical degree because the one she got 23 years ago was no longer valid. Her CPD is adequate.

Do you realise your GP example actually got a degree in medicine? Not an irrelevant business degree and a diploma

We DON'T WANT to follow what the Accounting profession did 70 years ago. We already know, it was ok 70 years ago not good enough now.

We DON'T WANT to follow what CA ANZ do, they are not very good at regulating their own members for us to use them as an example, and beholden to their masters the big 4 (many of your accountant colleagues refer to the CA ANZ as the lapdog of the Big 4 which I believe is a correct and apt description), see https://www.afr.com/companies/professional-services/accounting-body-turn...

We are a new profession, fast emerging, it's 2022. the past, well we can learn from it but it should be just that, relegated to the past. the future, it's us and we are doing it. the vast majority are on board.

thanks for your contribution.

CFP Mfin
You totally missed the entire POINT!!

You are NOT a new profession!! Were you a profession 40 years ago? 30 Years ago? 20 years ago.

Be very careful because your inexperience is showing through! Attacking comments about the CAANZ do not strengthen or invigorate your argument. Quite to the contrary.
The University of Central Queensland was offering Masters degrees about 15 or so years ago to people who did NOTY have an undergraduate degree. So 8 subjects and hey-presto , you have a Masters!!

This issue is : what is the most efficient method to "Transition" from the past hybrid multi-association system without leaving the public un-advised and without destroying the careers of individuals who in fact have many years of successful practice.
With respect, I find your comments shallow reflecting inexperience and possibly envious of other well recognised Professions.
Do I really need to give an example of the Legal Profession transition form their qualification methods over time?
No! You do it!!

Craig what do you think of internally run Managed Accounts or SMA's run for a clip. Do you see them as conflicted advice or not?

Sorry Craig, who's Mr McDonald? I'm struggling to keep up

What about the premise that a 25 year old who entered the industry 10 years ago, is now 35, doesn't require a base degree and others well over that have put in extra study despite having well over 10 years experience?

Give only those over 60 years of age in 2025 with more than 20 years experience and the exam passed an extension until 2032 (ie age 67) and then rule a line and lets move on. This will slow the adviser number collapse. For those under that age (e.g. aged under 56) right now they should make a call. Either do the study to fill their education shortfall or retire early. Then we will have a sunset date after which everyone is degree qualified and we have a chance of being treated like a profession and trusted rather than legislated out of existence. Plenty I know with large client bases and families have knocked off a full 12 unit Masters off already. Those who want a long career should get on with it. I do believe however many in the community need help and the collapsing numbers of available advisers is not in the public interest. A temporary reprieve to capable veterans to ease the transition makes sense.

with respect James22,

This comment, "and we have a chance of being treated like a profession and trusted .." is quite enlightening and definitive.

After all your study which apparently you crave not only recognition but celebration, you still do not see that for you to be a Professional in your clients eyes ( as indeed my clients see in me) integrity ,competence, adherence to ethical norms and treating your clients how you would wish to be treated makes you a Professional in their eyes.

Professionals do not suffer from illusory superiority James.

If experience had strong correlation with professionalism, then financial advice would be already a profession.

It isn't.....

With respect Mr. Bialystock, are you proposing experience does NOT have a correlation with professionalism?
A paradox perhaps??
Perhaps, causation, not correlation, where two things that occur together might not be causally related; they might be joint effects of the same cause or, then again, they might be totally unrelated. Financial Advice as to experience as to Profession?

It would appear you have an Is – Ought Problem!! It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to make an argument about the way things should be, like financial advice being a profession, by looking solely at evidence about the way that it, in fact, is perceived. Nothing is either right or wrong simply because it occurs.
Professional experience means the actual and lawful pursuit of the profession concerned.
Any review of any Profession will rely on "experience", application as one element of that description.
For my clients over the years, Financial Advice is seen as a Profession thru delivery and the Professionals providing it in that manner.
But alas, the debate is: what is the best way to "transition" to a profession as it applies to participants and clients currently in the market.

With respect, I find you logic failing.

G'day Craig, to address your first line in your reply to my comment. No that's not what I'm saying at all and I don't find the logic failing as the wording is not absolute. Hence the use of the words "strong correlation" in my sentence.

I believe that there are many experienced practitioners out there who offer tremendous value to the Australian public, have done a great job and continue to do so.

On the other hand, there are some experienced practitioners out there who I wouldn't trust to raffle the meat tray at my local sports club.

In my view - professionalism is a mixture of elements of which education is one, so is experience, client trust across all practitioners within the profession, client outcomes etc etc.

There is a wealth of experience out there in advice and if indeed the correlation of experience and professionalism was strong we would be seen in better light..... Hence my comment.

We're sitting low in the league tables when it comes to trust and professional perception relative to other careers and for good reason....

To suggest that someone should have education exemptions because they have 10 years experience is stand alone folly and not something that I endorse. Perhaps a middle road could be better but even then I have my reservations about that.

Frankly, I'm sick of a shouty cohort of advisers who in my view don't hold views that wish to raise the quality and professionalism of financial advice and its perception to the Australian public. I'm also sick and tired of paying for the sins of others. To me the education requirements were a step forward in addressing the mess left over from the RC. It was an imperfect filter and I appreciate that for some older advisers that it was a tremendous ask to get them to do this but it was better than having no filter at all.

The 'is-ought' problem you describe is pretty apt but maybe not with my statement by itself. We could argue for days regarding perception of professionalism of financial advice by the general public but I'd prefer not to do that.

I agree that you could make a decent case that 'is-ought' appears to be a prescriptive remedy which has been applied. With that - the 'is' has been pretty easy picking and in my view much of the 'ought' has been rubbish. No doubt we probably agree here.

I'm sure you look after your clients well and have many excellent outcomes in your practice. I get it.

But pick up the newspaper... Those stories aren't even told. Instead I'm reading about Dixon and public confidence in the advice profession post RC. Words like 'parasites' are being used. There's also reference to the education requirements being 'watered down' which isn't described using 'positive' descriptors in those same articles.

With respect Mr. Bialystock ,your logic is erroneous!

Quote".....There is a wealth of experience out there in advice and if indeed the correlation of experience and professionalism was strong we would be seen in better light..... Hence my comment..."
Notwithstanding that, with respect, you have missed the point!
The "TRANSITION" process is the issue.
How, do we do it most efficiently, equitably, and transparently.
There is little to zero benefit in "whipping" vengeance on sinners : Quote: .."On the other hand, there are some experienced practitioners out there who I wouldn't trust to raffle the meat tray at my local sports club..."
"I'm sick of a shouty cohort of advisers who in my view don't hold views that wish to raise the quality and professionalism of financial advice and its perception to the Australian public. I'm also sick and tired of paying for the sins of others."

No one knows who the "sinners" are. As no one knows who the bad doctors, solicitors, accountants, etc., are!
Your personal "view" is "your" opinion which, with respect once more, is a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
I do not doubt your passion or sincerity. I doubt your logic to resolve the ISSUE!
The Transition process must encompass transparency as well as efficiency and equity.
The other Professions can easily give us guidance on past methods of "Transition" from where the industry began with life insurance companies providing "their" view of knowledge , training, experience and professionalism to a formal efficient transparent process utilizing Universities as the bedrock of knowledge as the 1st step.

I am always au courant of those who want to vanquish others from their glass houses

Thank you.

Hi Craig,

I accept that I spent quite a bit of time talking identifying problems of perception within advice, but I do I talk about transition in my last post when I refer to education filters. This will be my last post on this matter as there are better things to do than clash heads on here.

You say my logic is flawed overall and maybe that's because some of the commentary I have made appears to contradictory. (I.e. I accept there are good experienced advisers out there but remain wanting to keep education standards.) I disagree that the logic is broken because the advice profession is viewed at at aggregate level, not at a local level and therefore policy needs to be formulated within an aggregate frame.

Your point about 'identifying sinners' I agree with with. That is difficult to solve for but I think we're moving in the right direction.

Also, I see nothing wrong with providing my thoughts on advisers who I don't think are trustworthy either.... I didn't single out anyone.

Isn't practitioner trust one of the foundations of a profession? If I don't feel I could trust them, then how do you expect the Australian Public to? Would I trust some of these practitioners more if they met the education requirements... Yes. Yes I would.

Again, in my opinion - within the 'profession' of financial advice, barriers to participant entry have been so low for so long and relative to other professions the probability of financial advice having more 'sinners' appears arguably increased.

My view is that if you have 'skin in the game' from obtaining education requirements and the associated opportunity costs of pursuing financial advice relative to other careers, the risks associated by 'sinning' once you become a practitioner is higher because the stakes are higher.

Yes, I'm sure you'll consider paraphrasing this saying I don't have any data and educated but inexperienced advisers can also be sinners etc etc etc.... However.... this is my "perception".

As yet I have not yet seen a good transition approach that convinces me that removing the current education requirements is a good idea. I'm open to there being one but as it has currently been put - I do not support this.

To suggest that I'm throwing rocks from a glass house is misguided at best and insulting at worse. I appreciate for the most part that you are trying to be genial with discussion here and I appreciate your passion, but I think you can and should do better than that.

Like everyone, I am very much entitled to my opinion and judgement regarding such matters. Also I have "experience" being a participant within the profession. Therefore, one might suggest maybe sarcastically (using the logic of education exemptions based on experience) that this should entitle me to a reprieve from 'factual' demonstration.

With regard to transparency..... 100% agree with you and this needs to be better.

Good on you for putting your input in Craig, I'll keep watching but for now I'm done. We'll see where we land.

Add new comment