Qualified Organisational Psychologist, experienced educator and adviser Philippa Hunt, B.Bus(Psych) ADFS(FP) Dip Ed, has been active in the financial advice industry for over two decades and is currently an AFSL license holder and financial adviser. The following is an extract from a submission Philippa made to FASEA regarding her concerns over the proposed new qualification regime to apply to financial advisers and details concerns she has – not only for the industry directly, but the extended consequences that may ensue.
My clients, staff and I are alarmed with the current proposed FASEA options for advisers who completed degrees and qualifications years ago and for older advisers who were never required to have a degree and relied on the current system over the years. Financial planning is learned on the job. The ADFS (FP) or equivalent is the basic training and ticket to Authorised Representative status to earn a living as an adviser.
With the constant changes to super and legislation, an older adviser has the background knowledge and experience to train younger advisers in the implications of constant government legislative changes for clients. The clients are confused with the constant changes to super and rely on an adviser’s experience to get it right for them.
Personally, if I decide that I will not take up yet again another long study course and I decide that I am too close to retirement age by the time that I finish it, notwithstanding the huge cost in time and money, and I sell my business along with many other advisers, it will halve the value of my business that I spent 20 years building. And make my staff unemployed. What will I and other advisers in that age bracket doing for 25-30 years in retirement? Living on super and the age pension because their business value was halved?
I had no intention of retiring technically before the next 5 years and certainly not in the next 2-3 years. My clients would be appalled and upset. If I had to sell my business at the same time as other advisers in the same age bracket, then the market becomes a buyer’s market and substantially reduces the value of their business asset to fund their own retirement.
Advisers like me and who look at facing redundancy with the forced sell-off of their business as a major asset, do not get a redundancy payout, long service, leave, annual leave entitlements as does an employee in an institution or large corporation such as a bank or fund manager. The sale price is determined by the market.
Yet, it is the adviser that puts funds under management that pays the salaries of the administrators of the fund manager. Less advisers, less income, less profit for shareholders.
Multiply this scenario across the industry over the next 5 years and many advisers who were doing the right thing as per government legislation, providing a good service will not reap the retirement benefits for their decades of hard work. To have this scenario as the result of arbitrary decisions by regulation is not acceptable in any industry. It is unfair and inequitable.
Advisers at this age and level of experience are at the zenith of their career path.
Current Status of the Industry
Advisers work with people to change their lives for the positive. Advisors are very influential in a client’s life. Clients view the loss of their adviser with alarm. Most especially the elderly.
10,000 advisors look after millions of clients. There are currently 24,000 advisers in the financial planning industry. If many older advisers or those who do not want to undertake such onerous courses of study, are forced to leave the industry within a short space of time because of unrealistic educational requirements towards the end of their working life, then millions of clients will be will lose their trusted advisor with whom they have had a very long stable and happy relationship. There will be no gradual handover or succession planning.
Repercussions
Forcing redundancy onto adviser’s forces redundancies onto their staff. An industry facing redundancies of 10,000 advisers means each employer’s office will lose 2.5 staff on average, ie. over approximately 40,000 people in the next few years.
Telstra is making 8000 people redundant and that made the national news headlines.
40,000 disaffected people? Where are they going to find another job to pay the mortgage and feed their children and millions of clients are certainly a largely disaffected number of people. That becomes a financial survival issue for many families.
Client outcomes?
Unhappy clients who have lost their adviser and usually a friend, are disaffected clients. Unhappy, upset clients are disaffected voters.
With only half the number of advisers left behind and not enough new entrants coming through on a long lead time, that loss will be compounded for the lost clients through being unable to find an equally competent and life-experienced advisor to build a long-term relationship that replaces one that is served the clients for many years, if not decades.
It will be the adviser’s businesses forced on to the market because of the decisions of people on the FASEA Committee. The decisions reached by FASEA will have massive change forced onto the industry with far reaching ramifications. Hundreds of years of collective professional experience will likely go out of the industry in the wake of the forced sale of many businesses in a short time frame.
Philippa Hunt is the Principal of Seachange Strategic Investments and founder of Wisegirls Money Academy, which was established as a course in financial education for women to develop real financial capability and independence.
Article by:
Comments32
"as a young adviser, this just fills me with joy and excitement. less advisers = more money for me! i have no sympathy for you old folk though. you spent decades raping and pillaging the public, do you think all this FOFA, RC, FASEA nonsense just appeared for no reason out of thin air? you alone are responsible for how low the public views this profession and how hard it is to make money with all these compliance requirements. its just karma that a large chunk of you are forced to leave so the rest of us can maybe possibly try and eek a living in this new environment where i have to spend an hour making notes after a 5 minute chat with a client."
John 10:19 on 25 Nov 18
"I agree with Nathan, FASEA is not forcing you out of the industry that is a choice you are making on your own because you do not wish to do further study in the very reasonable time frame FASEA has given you. I am a financial planner and at my office I have 2 bosses who are in your situation they own a financial planning business and have young families, also like you they have a degree in a non related field. But instead of calling it quits both of them have opted to do online Masters in financial planning part time, they are doing 1 unit per 6 months and they plan to finish it in 4 years. So please dont make blanket assumptions about the industry as a whole Phillipa because you are not representative of all financial planners, I have alot of friends at other financial planning firms and they say the vast majority are opting to do a graduate diploma part time or a masters part time in financial planning. But a small percentage at my firm and my friends firms are leaving because they just dont want to do any study and let me tell you these are the the type of financial planners that you want to leave the industry because they are actually some of the worst financial planners I have seen in my career. Also about your point that the time to study is when you are young??? SERIOUSLY HAVE YOU NOT HEARD OF CPD CONTINUAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ( THAT IS CONTINUALLY LEARNING WITH THE CHANGES IN THIS INDUSTRY BY DOING A MINIMUM OF STUDY HOURS PER YEAR, LIKE ACCOUNTANTS OR LAWYERS OR ANY OTHER PROFESSION HAS TO DO) I have looked you up on the ASIC advisor register and it appears that you are not a CFP Certified Financial Planner, If you were a CFP and a member of the FPA Financial Planning Association of Australia then you would be required to do CPD. CPD keeps you up to date with all the changes in the industry, Super is a very dynamic industry the rules change every time a government creates a new budget they always change some rules about Super, So to keep up with changes in Super, Insurance, Retirement Planning and Investments an advisor should be doing at least a minimum of 30-40 hours per year of CPD. But i guess for you Phillipa you just wanted to do the easiest qualification thats why you opted for a Diploma which is absolutely below par in terms of education standards ( its a fact that DFP and ADFP assignments have been circulated around by advisors and the MCQs have been photographed or screenshotted leading to the majority of people cheating this course, the assesment standards are a joke when compared to University studies, For instance you can do the MCQ at home on your PC and you just have to resit the parts you failed same for the assignments absolute joke) and then on top of this after getting the easiest qualification in financial planning you do not want to learn anymore or do CPD because you are not a Certified financial planner, well what you were taught in your diploma 20 years ago is actually now redundant, to be knowlegeable in this industry you must do CPD to keep up with the constant changes. Anybody who has been listening to the royal commision will agree Financial planning currently is not a proper profession with the scandals and misconduct and sales tactics etc i could go on and on. I am not saying by having a higher education standard you will totally elimante bad and illegal behaviour but it is a step towards making this industry into a proper profession that people can trust because right now trust is extremely low. Many banks hired financial planners who failed competency tests on financial planning, they still hired them even though their knowlege on financial planning was below par. thats because they had a large book of clients so the banks ignored the risk that the advisor had below par knowledge of the field and could not provide the right advice because they can milk the clients for fees. So please dont say that experience equals knowlegde because that is not true at all. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE HOW MANY FINANCIAL ADVISORS COULD PASS AN INDEPENDENT TEST THAT THEY CAN NOT CHEAT ON THAT IS WHAT THE NATIONAL EXAM IS GOING TO BE, IF YOU CANT PASS THAT TEST THEN YOUR KNOWLEGDE OF FINANCIAL PLANNING IS BELOW PAR AND YOU SHOULDNT BE ALLOWED TO BE AN ADVISOR. I THINK HALF OF THE CURRENT FINANCIAL PLANNERS WOULD FAIL IT Financial advisors still have below par education standards when compared to their peers like accountants and lawyers. For the past rules that Phillipa is defending all that is required to be a financial advisor is a diploma of fincial planning ( a joke qualification that has been passed in less than 2 weeks by some people who cheated it). Does anyone really think that a DFP is a good enough education for someone who could have a extremely negative impact on your retirement savings insurance and other life changing events. I dont I wouldnt trust my retirement savings to someone who is so underqualified. The new rules will see all financial planners having at minimum a bachelors in financial planning thats all that is changing so not a massive change at all, its still below the standards of other professions like accountants or lawyers who have to then join an professional body such as CA or CPA and then to stay a member they must do annual cpd. So for financial planners all that is required is just a bachelors in financial planning, thats it compare it to accountants below. For accountants a bachelors in accounting, then postgraduate study such as CA or CPA and then join that professional body and keep up with CPD of 30-40 hrs per year. So why should Financial Planners be exempt from these further requirements that other professional bodies have to undertake such as law or accounting. So by not learning and doing CPD you are actually making yourself redundant . Do the right thing get a graduate diploma or masters in financial planning do it part time and it wont be an issue or give up and their will be plenty of other advisors who will be happy to take over your clients."
Sam brown 15:17 on 13 Nov 18
"Another lazy financial planner who instead of doing the right thing by her clients and getting a proper qualification in financial planning is making up excuses that this will force her out of the industry, well FASEA has given old advisors plenty of time to do the qualification even if it’s part time they can study 1 unit per semester which is reasonable for any advisor or business owner even if they have a family. This excuse is absolutely pathetic and just goes to show the general lazy and apathetic culture and attitude of these older advisors instead of doing a graduate diploma part time in financial planning which is a maximum of 8 units in total and they can do this 1 unit per semester so it will take them 4 years which is in FASEAs time line to accomodate older advisors they are saying no this is too hard I can’t do that so I will have to leave. Well that is your choice FASEA has given you a very realistic timeframe in order to complete the education but that just shows what type of a person you are that you choose to quit instead of studying part time, my father is 65 years old he has an accounting practice and he decided to go back and do the graduate diploma in financial planning so that he could get the limited licence for accountants to provide financial advice. So if you are choosing to leave the industry because you are too lazy to study 8 subjects then that is your choice and a reflection on you don’t say FASEA is forcing you out of the industry that is a choice you are making because you can’t be bothered to study well there are plenty of people who are choosing to study and stay in the industry like my father who is older than you so you have no excuse for not studying other than being lazy. As to your point about the ramifications this will have on clients it will be a great thing if lazy advisors like you leave the industry because it shows what type of an advisor you are. If anybody has been paying attention to the royal commission the majority of financial planners especially with links to banks or wealth managers like AMP have been doing the wrong things by their clients and in most instances illegal things to their clients. So to say that this industry has a lot of great professionals because of their experience is an absolute joke. I started my career in financial planning and there are numerous advisors who have no degree related to the industry and they have all the experience in the world but their technical knowledge is horrible because they never learnt the basics at University. All jobs are on the job training but you still need a relevant degree to teach you the basics, why do lawyers, accountants, doctors need degrees but financial planners don’t , in all those professions you learn when you are on the job as well but you still need to know the basics. So stop whinging and complaining that this will force you out of the industry because the way FASEA has set it up anyone can achieve this qualification regardless of how busy you are at work and home because of the amount of time they have given you to achieve this if my 65yr old father can do it why can’t you???? BECAUSE YOUR LAZY THATS WHY "
Nathan 12:54 on 12 Nov 18
"Well said Philippa!"
Scott Everingham CFP 11:35 on 06 Sep 18
"Thank you Philippa for highlighting the loss of experience and knowledge if financial planners without a degree are made redundant from the profession. None of us are against education, we all do ongoing education and training every year. Instead of making the units of a financial planning degree separate, FASEA could support the implementation of the degree into ongoing education. Over time we would eventually end up with a degree from the ongoing education and training we already do because we want to give our clients the best advice we can."
Julie Matheson, CFP 08:57 on 06 Sep 18
"I have been in the industry since 1979 [from an Education not life insurance background] and thought I have seen everything. FASEA is a highly conflicted ruthlessly targeted disgraceful piece of legislation that benefits the Institutions and the Universities, discriminates against people with dependent children and the experienced. It also benefits the fringe 'vultures' who are trying to clip the ticket on education...surely this is the final realization that the FPA are, and rarely have acted in the best interests of the Advice community. Looks like having $18 million in the bank is not enough for them. Now that the architects of FASEA are dethroned [Turnbull/O'Dwyer], we must plan to deal with a Shorten Government - watch this space, we have a solution! "
PETER JOHNSTON 19:30 on 05 Sep 18
"Yes, the emotional and mental fallout for good honest hard working advisers will be significant. We have already seen one self-employed adviser commit suicide due to pressures of fofa, lif, and now fasea. Increased zero value red tape, business inefficiencies, greater costs, lower revenue, but huge business debt on the line - not rocket science to figure out the outcome. "
clueless politicians 18:22 on 05 Sep 18
"Philippa you have hit the nail on the head. Financial planning, accounting, taxation and superannuation are all about relationships. So many times over the years I have seen clients go to a financial adviser who has totally ignored the tax consequences of their plan. This will be exacerbated with new planners with no background in the client who are likely to be left if the proposals succeed. More to the point, I am required to do CPD for my financial planning designation, my tax agent registration, membership of Chartered Accountants ANZ and the SMSF Association. The logical conclusion to be drawn from the FASEA proposals is that this CPD is worthless because we clearly haven't learned anything if we have to go back to study. FASEA needs to reconsider the outcomes as outlined by Philippa which disrespect the existing planners and the educational bodies which are currently providing ongoing CPD. My clients want to deal with me and keep coming back because they get good advice. I am often asked "you aren't going to retire are you?" I have to say I also find this proposal insulting to my 40 years of accounting experience and my more than 20 years of planning experience let alone the 30+ years of superannuation fund setups and administration. I know that I am not alone. I understand that people want to professionalise the industry and I totally agree. It is just about how it is done because a further conclusion to be drawn is that those who have come up with this proposal disrespect the skills of all current advisers. How sad that thos in these decision making positions are so short sighted."
Gail Freeman 18:08 on 05 Sep 18
"I agree Phillipa I’m an adviser of 10 years my father of over 40 years his knowledge and experience is outstanding, he a friend to his Clients I grew up okay with their children. The loss of his knowledge and experience the sale of businesses like his and loss of work for staff I don’t believe the people making these changes understand the depth or breath of their responsibility and the flow on effect to the Australian public. This has all become more of a witch hunt/Spanish inquisition style situation get them get them all attack. It I guess is good for me as a future buyer BUT much much worse for me as I lose the human financial planning library that is my 40 years experiences father and his colleagues this is a BAD JU JU situation "
Venesa 17:51 on 05 Sep 18
"@Listen Up - I take issue with your statement above. In the first instance, the article is about this notion that financial advisers aren't educated. That has nothing to do with structure or remuneration or premise. This article's argument isn't about the requirement for education in itself, it is about what is not recognised for those of us who have been working in our field for years. Gaining a CFP designation isn't a walk in the park and is internationally branded as being the best of the best in the business. Ask anyone who completed their CFP and they will tell you that it required many long hours of study to achieve. But it isn't even considered because it wasn't set up via an educational institution. I happen to have completed two business degrees some 20 odd years ago. Back then, there wasn't a degree in financial planning. And I have since completed ADFP and the CFP programs to enhance my education relevant to my chosen career. We are also required to keep our knowledge relevant through CPE/CPD, so it's not like my "book knowledge" is not kept up to date either. Add 20 years experience in the mix as well and I am telling you I am not some hick off the street who doesn't know the legal and technical aspects of financial planning laws and practice. And I am not willing to accept from you or anyone else that I am not fit for my profession because my degree is "old" and the international CFP designation is not technically a "qualification". Your statement of the industry being built on unsound premise is also something I take issue with. Financial advice businesses is run no differently from the law industry, accounting industry or any other business for that matter. The big law corporations remunerate and put fee targets on their employees exactly the way financial advice businesses do. What about real estate agents - how many people are in deep financial trouble because of the great Australian belief that property is the way to get ahead. I have seen way too many people being told that they can use their super to put down as deposit on an investment property if they set up a SMSF. I don't see anyone saying anything about these property investment businesses that so freely run their "wealth seminars" effectively promoting geared investment - in fact, they actively promote the "tax benefits" of negative gearing!! Which is of no use to someone who doesn't earn a taxable income anymore and cannot sell these properties because they are in what is now a dead mining town. Show me an industry, profession, organisation of any kind where there are no ethical issues? Forcing more study in the name of enhancing education or changing how advisers are paid isn't going to change how the small number of bad actors behave. Just like it isn't changing unethical medical practitioners, lawyers, accountants, corporate execs, small business entrepreneurs, public servants, politicians etc from behaving badly. Ethics is like being pregnant - you are or you are not. We don't want them in the industry, but they are there and always will be. The bottom line is this - if 10,000 of the most experienced and knowledgeable advisers leave the industry, the public will suffer. "
BaldFinanceGuy 16:58 on 05 Sep 18
"Well said Philipa. It strikes me as being just like after the GFC. The "people" who caused all the problems get off pretty much scott free with all of their ill gotten gains to sip expensive drinks by the beach saying "Ha! Glad I don't do that Financial Planning stuff anymore!". They are scurrying away like the rats they are from a sinking ship. The laws are there, enforce them! It's nowhere near good enough for APRA to let this rubbish slide & for the FASEA committee to victimize the remaining legitimate practitioners. I've worked hard for my clients for more than 15 years, that's why I have a business of my own. My clients and I have been through hell and back together like many adviser have. The reason I go to work is to better other people's outcomes which I can say with absolute certainty I have. If I do a great job, then I too will do well. Karma will take care of that & dare I say hopefully the rest..."
Len 16:56 on 05 Sep 18
"The FPA is a disgrace. They have sold out their adviser base at every turn. I have my DFP and CFP as well as Degree and Post Grad qualifications and yet somehow it’s not enough. Yet where is the FPA??? I think we need to make a collective call that the FPA are no longer relevant and cancel our CFP/FPA membership in mass. Talk about fee for no service."
Paul O 16:54 on 05 Sep 18
"Very sad that this industry is being destroyed. Innocent, ethical and moral advisers lose out. I have lost one staff already this year as she could see what the outcomes would be. And at 48 yrs of age and with over 25 years in the industry and 13 of them as an adviser, I dont particularly want to go back an get a HECS debt and do a degree, or redo 11 of my diplomas again - because someone thinks they are out of date. "
Tarnia Gurney 16:53 on 05 Sep 18
"I agree with Dan. I also was advised back in the late 1990's to not complete my BCom and instead complete the Dip FP & CFP. The FPA was very happy to take my money back then for the training material, and has been happy to charge me extra each year for my membership, but has dumped me on the too hard pile when it comes to providing any support i.e true recognition of the CFP designation, and value for the monies paid. It is extremely disappointing, and not very professional!"
CFP worthless 16:42 on 05 Sep 18
"Well said Philippa, it is about time someone brought the issues out into the open. i am an adviser with 33 years' experience in the industry and have a list of dedicated clients who will be severely affected if I should choose to retire. i give highly specialised advice and they will have nowhere else to go. FASEA has proposed that we sit an exam at the end of 2019 and also undergo an ethics course. That is bearable. However the real killer is most of us will have to do 1,000 hours of formal study over the next six years. Even though many of us have degrees, but not "relevant" degrees. This is on top of running a business and leading a normal life. We have no idea what the study will involve, but judging from current education there will be very little useful in improving my business. The time to do study is when you are young, are not running a business and have few responsibilities. The biggest issue is that legislation passed last year, presumably based on advice from Treasury, gives no recognition to experience. However experience counts for a lot. It is widely recognised in politics, law, education, engineering, sport and any other field that you can think of that a person with 20 years' experience is worth more than a graduate with one year's experience. People with experience command higher salaries, more respect and generally make better decisions. Experience is particularly important in investment, given such events as the global financial crisis. the OPEC crisis and so on. How is it that the government gives no weight at all to experience? This is reflected in the fact that there will be no grandfathering of advisers. A law graduate with one year's mentoring will be deemed to be a better adviser than someone with 20 years' experience in all sorts of markets and investments. My clients are shocked when I tell them about and find it hard to believe. Adviser Ratings estimates that about 14,000 experienced advisers out of 25,000 will leave the industry because of the onerous study obligations. Obviously it will be older, wiser heads who will leave. This would leave investors in the hands of a whole generation of inexperienced advisers. The effect could be very detrimental to investors. It is like telling nurses with 20 years’ experience that they can no longer continue to work unless they get a nursing degree. It is like telling builders with many years of experience that they can longer work unless they become qualified as architects. I would prefer to have an experienced builder do my house renovation rather than a freshly minted architecture graduate. The last time an industry lost most of its experienced operators was the 1989 pilots’ strike. The airlines sacked the majority of pilots employed in Australia over a pay dispute. Fortunately for the flying public the Air Force was brought in as well as overseas pilots and there was little disruption. However this will not occur if the majority of experienced investment advisers leave the industry in Australia. There is no “Air Force” to bring in. There is also no pool of overseas advisers that can be brought in at short notice. The people who will miss out the most, apart from the advisers themselves, is the investing public. It means that the government is kicking an own goal. Also the investors with most of the money are middle aged or retired. They much prefer to deal with advisers their own age who understand and can empathise with their issues. Many would feel uncomfortable dealing with advisers in their twenties who are the same age as their children and who have had little life experience. However I envisage this is how the industry will end up if the proposals are implemented. Why is the media not onto this? John Howard got it right when he said recently that most advisers do their job well. It is the minority who are doing the wrong thing. "
Arthur 16:41 on 05 Sep 18
"I have fifty years experience as a financial adviser. Yes I hold qualifications in economics, law and accounting, and hold the DFP. But 80 per cent of being an adviser is the relationship of trust and confidence built up over several years with Clients. To make the remaining 20 percent a Himalayan barrier will effectively negate the vital 80%. In short the FASEA farce is exactly that, and effectively disadvantages those that ASIC purports to ‘protect’; the public. "
Jdub 16:32 on 05 Sep 18
"Well said, more importantly as we go forward, I see very little surrounding the Industry Funds and what is happening going forward in the years to come. I have a fair idea how this will pan out, but gee the sea saw is very much slopping one way here! Great advice has always and should be the back bone of the professional adviser and the clients engagement through their journey."
Shane 16:12 on 05 Sep 18
"Kaplan are now advising that just to assess current qualifications and provide exemptions, the charge will be $750 per unit. Perhaps they missed the fee for no service debate in the Royal Commission. These new education requirements are simply a cash cow for the education providers. There has been no demonstration that the misadministration of clients funds has been caused through lack of adviser education. Catherine Brenner has a law degree, economics degree and a MBA, yet AMP is still mired in the swamp. These new requirements will simply take time away from advisers doing their level best for clients, day in day out. I cannot see how passing an exam on the Corporations act, ethics and behavioural finance (a theory at best) helps me serve my clients any better."
Ron Clarke 16:08 on 05 Sep 18
"Philippa is right in her arithmetic. Plenty of article have suggested close to 40% of advisers are expected to exit the industry. That's 10,000 advisers gone. Furthermore industry models have placed the number of support staff required per adviser at over 2. I will be able to stay in the industry with my qualifications, but even I'm reviewing the logic of this as a business decision. The lack of regulatory stability & heightened legislative risk makes me concerned with the longer term prospects of the industry as a whole. Sure the rich will be able to continue to afford our services - but who is thinking about those who aren't in a position to stump up a hefty upfront advice fee? Too many have blamed the indiscretions of a few on the structure of an entire industry. Like the U.K industry agitators are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. How many people when highlighting the eradications of commissions in the U.K also highlight how much the cost of advice to the consumer has ballooned to? A personal financial adviser is fast becoming a luxury only the elite can afford. "
Michael Chalmers 16:07 on 05 Sep 18
"Listen up, I am not sure how you have come up with the belief that the structure and remuneration is so flawed that you think it is acceptable to destroy tens of thousands of peoples lives and force the most experienced advisers out of Business and millions of clients to be disadvantaged. Most Life Insurance specialists do not charge clients fee's and with the overwhelming percentage of Australians preferring the commission structure, effectively means the majority are being ignored which is typical of the world we live in now. I have run my Business for 31 years, have 7 people working in the Business, have a 100 percent success rate with claims and have never charged for this service. Clients love what we do for them and 100 percent prefer the current remuneration structure, yet I personally will be forced to give up my Business and no longer be able to advice clients because of the FASEA regime that I simply refuse to do. The implications for all Australians of thousands of Life Advisers leaving the Industry, is a multi Billion Dollar problem that will fall directly onto the Federal Government and future Tax payers, with reduced Tax receipts and multi Billion dollar welfare payments that will rise year on year. There is a big difference between the theoretical world of Canberra and the real world. The current FASEA idealism is flawed and lives in the realm of utter stupidity, mixed with criminal negligence."
Jeremy Wright 16:06 on 05 Sep 18
"All so true! In fact things will probably be far worse, maybe even suicidal for those who loose so much. Marriages ,families who knows??????? "
Bob 16:06 on 05 Sep 18
"Agree with you Phillipa. Action is required! Send this to your Fed MP and have face to face meeting if possible. Send it to FASEA also with "signature required" so we know they have it. A revolt against this tyranny is futile, say some.... I disagree. The figures for how many of us are badly affected and likely to leave the industry are very high in my discussions with advisers. Not all senior ones, either. By actually being active and challenging this lunacy, we can make a difference - even pushing the date back by a few years will help. Accepting experience and past qualifications is a better outcome. FPA let us down. Resign. there are other organisations out there... see what they are doing. Ask your clients what they think and see if they will sign a prepared letter to their Fed MP. The more who do this the more political pressure is brought on. Don't wait for Shorten and his cronies to get into power... we have no hope there. The time for action is now... "
stephen legg 16:02 on 05 Sep 18
"I think one of the biggest points most are missing around the entire FASEA matter apart from the Advisers being told they need to "upskill" by way of education, is the fact that Universities and even the likes of Kaplan don't actually educate. They teach theory that's often outdated and has little to no practical use or relevance. Though they don't educate. They don't teach someone how to be an Adviser - a good or a bad one. Just as Universities don't teach someone how to be an Accountant, with most finishing their "education" still unable to actually do the job of a Junior without extensive training, coaching and mentoring in the workplace. A piece of paper isn't going to make an Adviser a professional, nor a better Adviser, nor provide better outcomes for clients. It's not even going to produce a more ethical Adviser. It's merely going to tick the box of a regulator who has no idea of the actual practicalities of the industry they regulate, and fill the coffers of the "educators"/institutions."
Nathan Smith 16:01 on 05 Sep 18
"I can understand Phillipa's frustrations, as the proposed changes will impact on Adviser numbers and will ultimately impact practice valuations and adviser retirement assets. I agree that a mass exodus of advisers and businesses will have a flow on affect on support staff and their job prospects. I also agree that many 'older' loyal clients will be disappointed with losing a trusted adviser/friend. However, I don't think there is anything that we can say or do to change the ultimate outcome, of such a 'politicised' process. I think our industry is set to endure a lot of further pain & suffering. This, brought on by the handful of bad apples, criminals, greedy Fund Managers/Dealer Groups and incompetent, toothless regulators. I think the majority of advisers are doing the 'right' thing by their clients, but will now have to suffer the consequences. The media have a lot to answer for in their relentless attacks and skewed facts, just to get a headline, to cause further damage on our brand! Raising the bar and forcing already qualified advisers with Dip FP, related degrees and 10+ years of experience is ultimately a 'cop out'. This is a 'stitch up' for our industry. Criminal behaviour is stiff rife within the 'Professions'. Price gouging and corruption still exists within the 'Professions'. A Royal Commission into Doctors, Accountants, Solicitors would uncover 'bad' behaviour and poor client outcomes. The winners will not be the clients, advisers or staff of financial planning businesses. The winners will be the Politicians who banter their disapproval, the Media who solicit greater revenue streams with biased headlines and of course, our competitors, who will be spending big on advertising themselves, as the trusted salvation to their advice/product conundrum! "
Mick Jones 16:01 on 05 Sep 18
"I find this all intensely frustrating as there are so many of us who have looked after our clients best interest for decades, ticked all the boxes we were supposed to in completing the DFP and becoming a CFP and maintaining our knowledge in a rapidly and constantly changing world and now just because I didn't get a uni degree I feel I am being punished for the disgraceful behaviour of others. I feel also this is age discrimination. FPA nowhere to be seen on supporting the excellent financial planners out there at all. FASEA is dominated by academics so hardly surprising they are saying we need a degree. Like going to see a surgeon and being surprised when they say you need surgery! The education sector must be rubbing their hands with glee! "
Berenice Roberts 15:53 on 05 Sep 18
"It wasn't clear how Phillipa concluded that 10,000 advisers would be "made redundant" by the proposed changes. Where did this number come from and where did the accompanying 2.5 multiplier come from? This is an extract so perhaps the full version has the details No-one is forcing anyone to sell their business. Even if you have basic qualifications, there will be tailored bridging courses which, if you have the expertise that one would expect, would be fairly simple to complete. As an industry we need to lift the bar on qualifications and continue our journey to true professionalism. I agree with other commenters though, it is disappointing that my CFP appears to have no value, other than as a Recognition of Prior Learning, maybe. "
Greg 15:52 on 05 Sep 18
"Well said Philippa. There is not enough weight being given to experience as an adviser and life skills. CFP and Dip FP should be given a longer period of continuing ability to practice eg if the adviser has a minimum of say 10 years continuous experience as an adviser. Extending the rule change to at least 2025 would make a worthwhile difference."
Geoffrey 15:41 on 05 Sep 18
"FPA has gone missing on this - why with 20 years of experience, Accounting Degree, DFP and full 5 unit CFP do I have to go back to study let alone sit an exam - too many snouts in the trough smelling the education dollars and a government focused on virtue signalling rather than getting out of our lives - Kelly O'Dwyer is a disgrace"
CFP Waste of Time 15:31 on 05 Sep 18
"Agree with Dan Findlay FPA has a lot to answer to so many advisers have shown they have attempted to do, yet again what we have been advised or told to do , only to find out it was fruitless. The FPA is distasteful now even continuing to advertise this qualification as being worth anything, the additional CFP cost to membership needs to be removed until they can get clarification that it is worth anything at the moment it is not. FASEA needs to look at these advisers who paid for and studied the CFP as at the time it was being sold to them as being worth something and there was very little else available."
Jane Walker 15:30 on 05 Sep 18
"Whilst I have sympathy for the gist of this article, the fact remains the structure and remuneration in the industry is just not up to scratch. We can't "prop up" an industry if it is based on an unsound premise. Getting more professional in the eyes of the public has to happen - having these new educational standards is one way to do it. We propped up the car industry for years before the pin was finally pulled - that cost 100's of thousands of jobs direct and indirect. Again, I have sympathy but sometimes the bandaid has to be pulled off quick."
Listen Up 15:10 on 05 Sep 18
"I was formally advised in 1995 by FPA Education officer to stop my Bachelor of business with 20 credits and to move to Diploma of Financial planning to fast track my CFP accreditation and meet all FPA education requirements, so I did, and now I'm being told that was a major mistake ..???? I'm seriously thinking of suing the FPA for this. they have not looked after us at all, they let Industry Funds produce advertisements for years that gradually erode consumer confidence and our CFP integrity, they have lived off our membership fees, and now they will be charging us lots of new dollars for us to apply and meet our bullshit education requirements "
Dan Findlay 15:01 on 05 Sep 18
"Totally agree and support Philippa's letter, and good on you for taking on the biased, dumb bureaucrats unlike our pathetic FPA that we have personally funded and kept them viable over the last 30 years. It's a bloody disgrace, and if we have to upgrade skills and education, then so do Accountants Lawyers, politicians, vets, Dr's etc. "
Dan Findlay 14:56 on 05 Sep 18