Has FASEA devalued prior experience?

With key elements of the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) regime, including continuing professional development (CPD) having come into force on 1 January, the industry is still warning of inconsistencies around which degrees are being recognised and the status of prior learning.

The level of continuing angst in the industry has been made clear by the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) in a submission filed with FASEA which made clear high levels of disappointment among more experienced planners about recognition of prior learning (RPL).

The AFA submission made clear that older, experienced advisers who joined the professional before recognised advanced courses emerged and who did not otherwise old an Associate Diploma of Financial Planning or a professional designation had been left particularly disappointed by FASEA’s approach.

Related News:

That approach entails denying the right of Higher Education providers to exercise their discretion with respect to recognising the prior experience of advisers.

“These advisers have been told by many Higher Education providers that they would get at least two credits for experience,” the AFA submission said. “As a result of the announcement about the removal of any RPL discretion by Higher Education providers, these older experienced advisers will no longer have access to credits for experience.”

The AFA said this was “a particularly important point that needs to be addressed”.

“This is the group of advisers where there is the greatest risk of a mass exodus and these changes have only made it more difficult,” the submission said.

The AFA said it was also surprised to discover that existing advisers with a relevant degree would be required to do four subjects, whereas advisers with a relevant degree and an ADFP or professional designation would only be required to do one subject.

“Given the starting position of four credits for a relevant degree and two for either an ADFP (or equivalent) or a professional designation, we were struggling to understand how four minus two equals one,” the submission said. “We therefore assume that in this case the relevant degree is worth more because they have an ADFP (or equivalent) or a professional designation (i.e. five rather than four) or the ADFP (or equivalent) or the professional designation is worth more because they also have a relevant degree (i.e. three rather than two).”

“In either case, this seems to add further unnecessary complexity and we propose that the relevant degree goes back to being worth effectively five credits, with only the three bridging course subjects being required,” the AFA submission said.

Recommended for you




Aims of FASEA?
To direct more students to Education providers so that they can make lots of money out of advisers. (who are directors of FASEA?)
To humiliate older advisers who have learnt on the job over many years, are generally extremely competent and caring and who will be educated alongside fresh faced youngsters straight from school who KNOW NOTHING; what a waste of time as the older advisers are slowed down by the more ignorant younger students! Appallingly bad education practice!!!!
To encourage older advisers to sell up and get out at discounted business values so that the larger adviser groups can accumulate business at dirt cheap prices.
To force older advisers to indoctrination now common in left wing Universities where one must toe the line on Left Wing polluted curriculums or otherwise FAIL.

The reason for this is because the process has been a carefully planned and orchestrated culling program over the last 4-5 years.
Be in no doubt there is a determined agenda to eliminate as many of the older, experienced advisers as possible by imposing an unacceptable accreditation process which they know will be so overwhelming, the decision to exit the profession will be made for them.
High quality, compliant and ethical advice is never in question and should never be compromised at any level, but the inference that forcing older and highly experienced advisers to effectively start again in the pursuit of a proposed lift in consumer outcomes or a higher quality of advice is naive at best or knowingly and utterly deceitful in it's intention.
The culling program is deliberate, intentional and purely designed to cleanse the profession and to draw a line in the sand without any compromise or consideration for those that may be retiring over the next 10 years, but who have operated highly successful practices delivering good client outcomes and without issues over many,many years.
It is an absolute disgrace.

The industry has had a "gutful" of FASEA's Stalinistic approach to date. They pretend to "consult" yet only make changes at the margin and treat the industry like we're meant to be grateful - like a dog licking up the scraps from the dinner table. As others have pointed out, FASEA received 92 submissions with respect to the Education Pathways submission, yet issued the final Legislative Instrument only 9 days later in the week prior to Xmas. Maybe FASEA employed a team of speed-readers to read them all? I don't think so. Whilst the Exam Standard consultation is not yet closed (with the industry receiving notification of an extension around 1.5hrs prior to the closing time - too little, too late), we question the appointment of ACER as the exam administrator (given their lack of financial services expertise), and the proposed charge of $540+GST, plus all manner of proposed restrictions on scheduling and resits. By way of comparison, ACER run the Law Admission Test (LAT) and charge only between $153 - $178 (GST inc.) for a 2 hour test. ACER also run the Graduate Medical Schools Admission Test (GAMSAT), yet only charge $505 for a 5.5hr test + 1hr break + 25min of reading time. Yet FASEA wan't to charge us $594 (inc. GST) for a 3hr test. In effect, FASEA have set up a 'monopoly' environment with their arrangement with ACER and if this was a commercial environment, I'm sure the ACCC would be interested. The industry is being ripped off !!

The difference here is the GAMSAT are for candidates looking at "applying to study" medicine, dentistry, optometry, physiotherapy, podiatry, pharmacy and veterinary science. FASEA on the other hand have ignored the fact that advisers (new or existing) may be full qualified, and competent, and are still forced to sit an exam. I know of maybe one or two other professions where this is the case (barristers or medical specialist). Teachers, Lecturers, Accountants, Lawyers, Engineers, Doctors, Nurses, or CEOs do not have to sit an exam once they have attained a level of competency to practice in their field of expertise.

As you have noted "I know of maybe one or two other professions where this is the case (barristers or medical specialist). Teachers, Lecturers, Accountants, Lawyers, Engineers, Doctors, Nurses, or CEOs do not have to sit an exam once they have attained a level of competency to practice in their field of expertise." Exactly right. I just can't for the life of me work out why we need both the exam plus degree / degree equivalent. I am not asking for anything more than Logic & common sense.

What's now clear is that Bachelor of Commerce/Business/Finance degrees now considered "non-relevant". I have 20 years experience, plus a Commerce degree, plus a finance degree covering topics such as Superannuation, Super and Retirement planning, tax and financial planning. The Higher Education Provider has said this degree does not meet FASEA requirements.

I have a Masters Degree in Financial Planning and it is not approved, all because I received a couple of credits from the uni for prior learning and one of the subjects on the FASEA list was an elective. The course is no longer offered, so I am stuffed. I can't fill in the gaps. But here's the kicker, it may not even qualify as a 'relevant degree'!!!! How could this be allowed to happen? WTF is going on?

Forty years of solid experience, policies arranged that have led to millions of dollars in insurance claims to support families and businesses, happy retirees and a new generation of clients holding protection that we all know they need but hope they never use all. Plus money accumulating in investments. What does this mean to FASEA? Fat diddly squat. What does it mean to me? Everything. What does my future exit from the industry mean to my clients? Disappointment.

In fairness, pre-FOFA experience really isnt worth much.

They're the same people complaining the onus is on the client to request service for the fees they are paying...

Reality, you are so far out of touch with reality. I believe that I and the vast majority of my peers have always acted in a professional manner looking after our clients. The vast majority of my clients see things like Fee Disclosure Statements as unnecessary burdens, as they understand my fee structure and it has never been hidden from them. FOFA was designed for those in the minority whose clients were not treated the same. Unfortunately, we all now pay a high price for those miscreants. Our clients even more so, as the duplication of disclosures and extra compliance burden means across the industry fees have risen and will continue to do so.

I'm not stirred up by your comment, more amazed at the blatant stupidity of it. If advisers like me were incompetent and failing to deliver good advice & value to clients, we wouldn't have any clients left.

If you needed a brain tumour removed, who would you prefer do the surgery? The surgeon who had been doing similar work for forty years or the new medical graduate in his first year of practice?

You cant compare surgeons to financial planners. They are a profession, they are all educated, we are far from that as it stands.

We need to get the old car-salesman out of the industry to improve.

Ive got plenty of pre-FOFA experience but I am also not naive (or jaded) enough to think that the industry was anything more than sales back then. Its time to shape up or ship out.

The beginning of the new order in Australia. Reduce the impact of free enterprise, everyone will now get the same investment performance, no need for advice to get ahead as government will take control, the government will undertake the asset allocation, increase the allocations to infrastructure, government debt allocations, fund certain industries, take money away from others, use the superannuation assets as key pool of strategic assets for political purposes. FASEA just a tool as part of the superannuation change agenda in getting rid of the obstacles that may create free thinking and guidance.

Going forward you will more likely see:

Ex politician as Chairperson of the new order superannuation
Ex politician as trustee

Add new comment