What will be the outcome of the experience pathway?

Stephen Jones’ proposed experience pathway will likely come into force, but Sarah Abood, chief executive of the FPA, expects to see certain restrictions added.

Speaking at the FPA roadshow in Sydney, Abood said she expected the experience pathway to come into force but said the organisation was advocating for certain constraints to be applied.

The original proposals stated advisers who had 10 years of experience as a financial adviser in the last 12 years would only need to complete a tertiary level unit on the code of ethics.

Related News:

“We will see the experience pathway and are advocating hard to get an answer but think it will have some constraints,” she said.

She said the problem with the delays was that it was leaving members in limbo as to whether they should complete their studies or whether they would be eligible for experience pathway.

“Stephen Jones came out with a strong position publicly of the experience pathway but he will need to have something that won’t be an open-ended 10 years because the associations have strongly come back and said that wouldn’t be a good idea.

“There have been ideas put forward on how it can be limited and the FPA has suggested an age limit.

“We have said to him that our members need an answer soon as it is leaving them in limbo, some are partway through their studies and unsure if they need to continue.”

The FPA had previously stated the experience pathway should not apply to younger advisers as they may lack formal tertiary qualifications which would be negative from a consumer perspective.

Jones stated this week that he was working to deliver the experience pathway “as soon as possible”. 

Recommended for you




Simply put, any adviser who is actually cares about their clients would either be looking to get out now or have already started/finished their study.
It is BS that older advisers are unable to work and study and frankly the ones that are whinging are just lazy advisers that make the rest of us look bad. Just get over it, get your masters degree and move on with providing excellent advice to the clients that really need it.

Why get a Masters degree when a Grad Dip will meet the FASEA requirements? If Jones has any sense he'll lower that requirement to a Grad Cert for advisers with lots of experience and CPD.

because a master's degree is a higher award than a graduate diploma. we want to be the profession with the highest educational qualifications in not just Australia but the world. don't you want that?

I don't want to be at the same level as an accountant who has a grad dip.

plus 4 more subjects to a master's anyway so let's just get it done.

That's a noble ideal but many advisers voluntarily undertook higher qualifications including degrees and the real (not grandfathered) CFP long before FASEA came along. The conflicted FASEA Board deemed it all largely worthless, in order to sell more courses aligned to their own vested interests.

The moral of the story is don't over invest in education now, given that you will likely be forced to purchase it again in a slightly different wrapper by a new bunch of conflicted bureaucrats further down the line.

There are advisers out there who are CFPs have advanced diploma in FP who are SSAs and over 600 hours of CPD hrs. What makes you think that masters is going to improve their knowledge? No proof of your claim exists, and will never exist. Professional advice is honour and calling for most advisers and this BS about masters is just that. BS on your personal agenda.

I hope your empathy with your clients is better than with older planners. Soft skills are important and not taught in a masters degree. Good luck with the great advice and little empathy, understanding or soft skills, sounds a good mix.

FPA are saying be ready for limitations, because the FPA is lobbying for limitations.

FPA sees their role as primarily to protect the interests of consumers but take money off advisers. Exactly why would any adviser pay money to the FPA? Just sent a donation to CHOICE!

Should the exemption have a sunset? Yes.
Should it be aged based? No.
Should there be peer review for knowledge assessment and not more money paid to vested interest education providers? Absolutely.

Are you saying you'd be happy for a person who got their authorised rep off the back of DFP 1-4 at the ripe old age of 20, now receiving a full exemption because they're now 30 and have been advising for 10 years? that person is effectively getting their whole career grandfathered and will stop our industry from being recognised as a profession until they decide to leave or retire.

The bar has got to be far higher than that. Minimum 15 years experience, clean compliance record and aged over 50. If you're under 50 and aren't prepared to do the study then go find another career. Mortgage Broking would be the best bet, no education requirements for them at all.

Silly comment. No. If the adviser is 30 and somehow managed to become CFP or SSA sure. What more he can learn in the school?

It's not about "what more can be learned at school", it's that the previous minimum education standard was a joke. You don't need to have a CFP to be a current Adviser. Many advisers completed DFP1-4 in a matter of months. If you're committed to being part of the profession then you should have no issue with getting a formal qualification. Don't forget that existing Advisers are not required to do a full degree as a new Adviser is - maximum 8 subjects at Grad Dip level is not too much to ask for someone over a period of 5-6 years, which is how long they were given.

To answer the question in your other post - i've been advising for 17 years. That's irrelevant, we need to speaking on behalf of the profession not out of self-interest. How can be go to ASIC/Government and ask them to relax the compliance burden when we've got Advisers running around out there with no formal qualification.

Oh Brett can you tell us how any years of face to face client advising experience do you have? Hopefully 15 no less because it will take new masters guy to master financial planning

The FPA is self serving, outdated, and out of touch. The FPA is now just a supplier of services and a body trying to represent too wide an audience. They sell webinars, seminars, a CFP course, a CFP logo for older advisers that have no real education, and an annual conference. I suspect senior Management first thought was "how can we use this, to get Advisers to enroll and buy into the CFP program"...the solution would be some level of education and a link up with Universities of course. Hence they'll say some level of education will be required for a greater audience. If it's right it's a coincidence, they're not doing it for you.

Add new comment