Only 163 advisers entered industry since 2019

The numbers of advisers who entered the financial advice industry since 2018 is still significantly below average levels, even three years after the Royal Commission, according to Wealth Data.  

The firm said this was a result of the ongoing issues around the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) requirements and a lack of defined pathway for new entrant financial planning candidates. 

Wealth Data said the total number of new advisers and provisional advisers since 2019 equalled to 163.  

Related News:

By comparison, the number of advisers who held the ‘current’ status, as per the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) Financial Adviser Register (FAR), and commenced in 2016 and 2017 stood at 1,488 and 1,021, respectively. 

In 2018, the number of new adviser roles that held a ‘current’ status was 2,166. 

“We can see that the number of advisers who are current and what year they commenced basically fell off a cliff post 2018. In fairness, this was driven by a surge in 2018 to take advantage of new FASEA rules. For example, we currently have 2,166 adviser roles on the FAR for advisers who commenced in 2018 and only 34 for 2021,” Wealth Data’s director, Colin Williams, said. 

According to him, while the total of new advisers and provisional advisers since 2019 was encouraging, it would not stop the losses. 

“For example, if we use a starting point of 19,000 advisers and have a natural attrition (retirements, resignations out of advice, etc) of only 4% that would equate to a natural loss of 760 advisers in one year,” Williams said. 

“To replace 760, we would need to hire much more than 760 to account for the ones who simply don’t make it as an adviser.” 

Source: Wealth Data 

The number of actual advisers continued to decline further this week, although at a slower rate compared to  a few weeks ago, and dropped to 19,097.  

At the same time, the number of adviser roles decreased to 19,368, with 26 licensee owners posting net gains for 47 roles while 37 licensee owners saw net losses of (-59) roles. 

AMP Group was down (-11), with losses across AMP Financial Planning, Charter, Hillross and IPAC.  

Following this, accounting firm Daniel Allison reduced their adviser number by half, moving down from 12 to six roles, and Boston Reed and HESTA were both down (-3).  

Three groups Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australian Bank, and Australian Administration Services better known as Link were down by two roles (-2) and around 30 licensee owners reported a loss of a net (-1) adviser each. 

Recommended for you




No surprises here. I'm surprised that as many as 163 entered this once great industry since 2019 - I thought it was much less than that. Who in their right mind would do it, with abject clowns like FARCE-IA, ASIC and other self absorbed entities commanding sway with ridiculous nonsensical exams, rules and flip-flopping rampant. Much better the graduates go into real estate where their industry associations keep the industry workable and profitable for the new entrants and allow them to be of real service to their clients without interference or suffocating compliance. Too sad for words what the govt and associated pig-bodies have done to our former fantastic industry and the poor clients and advisers within. They should be beyond ashamed.

Many of those 163 are registered with property groups and are not comprehensive advisers or even intrafund/ scoped advisers etc. Wyndham Resorts, Accor Hotels make up a large portion of those registered. The reality is, financial advice businesses are not registering PY entrants and why would they with the lack of FASEA support, supervision required, non-revenue generation that is encompassed in taking on a new entrant.

How proud the likes of Medcraft, Shipton, Press, O'Dwyer, Hume et al must be. They have successful destroyed a profession providing valued advice and service to millions of Australians. The problem for people like "beyond my pay grade" Press, is without any advisers to ban she won't have a job.

hahahaha what else can we do but laugh at this. Education standards is one thing but the professional year is what has killed the future prospects of the kids wanting to get in. Look, the positive to focus on is that those who remain and are say, under 50, will have a pretty bright future in planning. They will be able to cherry pick the best clients who can afford the advice and this will translate into the average adviser looking after fewer clients whilst business revenue increases fairly substantially. The only unknown is where the average Joe will go to receive advice. Robo can't cut it at the moment so large super funds is the only option. Better than nothing I guess.

It's easier to become an Accountant rather than a Financial Planner. Not to mention the employment opportunities post University when you've got 180,000 Accountants looking for employees and only 18,000 Advisers. Think about that if you're an 18 year old making life choices at Uni. Then extrapolate that out 10 years and consider what that's going to be like. The meaning of a Degree (FASEA job) should have only ever been a broad finance degree. To own a financial planning business, run an AFSL or supervise it should be either broad Degree or specialist FP Degree + FASEA requirements which is the eight units of a Grad Dip + exam....this would leave Degree qualified "employees" having passed FASEA exam and ethics unit practicing....another words a Commerce Graudate lands a job in an advice practice, do your FASEA study, and pass the exam before advising only...if you want to run the business you'll need the Grad Dip.

We are on the right track according to FARCEA.

Why would you become a Financial Adviser? Anyone???

We are the most screwed over occupational class ever!!!! except for maybe paramedics (they should get paid more, and we need more of them).

I'm almost starting to believe the people who think Lab/lib and ASIC are trying to get rid of us completely. What else explains this crazy stuff???

Add new comment