Will Brimble’s FPEC resignation clear air?

Amid expressions of angst by some planners about the make-up of the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority board and the use Financial Planning Education Council (FPEC) register, one of its key academic members, Dr Mark Brimble has resigned as chairman of the FPEC.

Brimble’s resignation was announced by the initiator of the FPEC, the Financial Planning Association (FPA), with the organisation’s statement saying his resignation had followed FASEA’s announcement that it would be adopting FPEC’s framework and course approval list.

Brimble and other members of the FASEA board, who were appointed by the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, had been the subject of angry claims by some financial planners that they may be conflicted because they are attached to academic institutions whose degrees are included on the FPEC list.

Related News:

His resignation also came as FASEA and the major financial planning organisations move to begin consultations around the education pathways likely to be open to planners.

Sharon Taylor, Senior Lecturer at Western Sydney University and current Deputy Chair of FPEC, would act as Chair until the FPA Board appointed a suitable replacement.

Related Content

The end of an 18-year punt

The Commonwealth Bank’s announcement about how it will demerge its Colonial First State and other wealth businesses brings an end to an 18-year stra...Read more

Follow the leader

The Federal Government’s decision to make a degree-level qualification mandatory for new financial advisers from January 2019 was met with nods from...Read more

More FASEA consultation predicted

The Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) will need to take on board feedback from the financial services and planning industry and...Read more




Think I will just give up. I only want to give good advice that improves client positions in an ethical manner. I have not idea how to charge client for 400 hours of education, and no desire to become a full time bureaucratic.. I sincerely hope these changes improve client results, but somehow I doubt it. I also sincerely hope I will be able to sell my business after all these "government improvements"

Robin, imagine if we closed all the hospitals that taught Medicine and moved them to Perth. What would people in rural, regional and remote parts of the country think? There would be an uproar. That is exactly what FASEA have done by adopting a narrow FPEC list for new entrants for financial planning from 2019. I don't think you'll find the numbers high enough to buy a business. The FPA focusing and submitting a narrow list of Uni's (FPEC) as a pathway into a specialist CFP program for example like say CPA Australia's CPA program is the biggest blunder ever. They overlooked existing degree holders. Unless of course it was done on purpose to derive more revenue via the potential to offer further learning to meet FASEA requirements. Perhaps this is why there submission devoted a single sentence on the value of experience or 14 points out of 100. They are heavily conflicted and FPA members need to resign.

Mark Brimble needs to resign. No point in going to the Olympics in South Korea if all the judges are North Korean. Planners want to plan, plan our own future but we can't.

I think selling the business will be a loss, but given the alternative costs in terms of time, and money and compliance, and the ability to recover the costs from innocent clients I am starting to think that the process is a lose lose solution. I actually would feel guilty charging clients to cover the cost of the lost time and cost of the education. Has anyone worked out if we can put the cost on HECS? I would almost be tempted to enrol and charge it to HECS and also retire.

I put my Masters on HELP debt (which is more of less the same as HECS) but its kinda pointless as most advisers will earn enough that they need to pay back the full debt each year anyways.

The FPA mandate has always worried me. When it changed from being a member organisation to having a we are here also for the Australian public. It is easy to say that the two mandates are ideologically the same and I agree, but in terms of operations they are very different. It has seen them get tied up in FPEC, partnering with Universities, then the commercial aspect of that ( is this making money or costing members money), why not let policy and uni's make their own business decisions. This is where the conflict lies and the academics have seduced the FPA into the commercial side of education. And the FPA has lost it's members first respect for mine. That and other large dealer influence and it's not acting on my behalf, actually against me.

This is true in a lot of ways Bozo, if it was the FPA charter just to work in the interests of its members that would be useful, helpful even. However to want to educate, be involved with consumer groups, etc etc...this is all outside of our best interests, so why do we pay them the fees? I have said this before, scrap both the AFA and FPA, merge to form a member only organisation, as it should be. Then we would actually have power. Let the hangers on at the FPA and AFA that want to work for consumers and work on policy go and be a pollie or work for choice. Trim down the assocations, work for the advisers that pay you, don't get caught up in wasted time, we are that weak in the publics eyes, but at the same time we have all these resources being directed at things that are not in our best interests jmo.

Add new comment