A profession divided over ‘experienced pathway’

Mike Taylor

Managing Editor and Publisher

19 April 2023

The Government’s exposure draft legislation delivering the “experienced pathway” has revealed a deep divide within the financial planning profession with even some of those who will be advantaged by the proposed regime admitting it risks undermining professionalism.

However, there is almost unanimous agreement that one of the biggest failings of the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) regime will be addressed via a more flexible degree approval process including the exercise of ministerial discretion.

At the same time, new analysis undertaken by WealthData suggests that if the Government’s legislative draft passes the Parliament relatively unamended those using the pathway will likely continue operating as advisers for at least a decade and perhaps up to 20 years.

As well, WealthData principal, Colin Williams said that the changed dates revealed in the exposure date of 1 January 2007 to 31 December, 2021, could add as many as 400 advisers to the number of beneficiaries of the proposed arrangement. Earlier, WealthData analysis had pointed to more than 3,000 advisers being potential beneficiaries.

The reaction of advisers who have pursued their degree qualifications irrespective of the promise of the “experienced pathway” was reminiscent of the negativity directed towards those perceived to have benefited from the Financial Planning Association’s ‘grandfathering” of the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) designation. In other words, it will not dissipate quickly.

The following represent a cross-section of adviser reactions to the exposure draft:

“As someone who has passed the exam and spent the money and energy to complete the required additional courses, including the ethics requirement, this is insulting. It does not matter how many years of experience you have every financial advisor should be doing the ethics module at least. I do not see why I had to go through so much money, stress & energy and sacrifice my free time when others don’t.”

“Please let me know who I am to send my exorbitant course fees to since I was (incorrectly) instructed by government that I HAD to do these courses to stay in the industry despite being 63 at the time I needed to be (re-)qualified…”

“This is shameful as an industry that we lobbied to have this watered down so much. Everyone should have just got on with it and moved our industry towards a profession. No one who supports this should be allowed to call themselves a professional.”

“agree 100% – what a disgrace. I too studied Grad Dip after 30 years of experience despite having many other qualifications. the experience pathway is simply bad policy and it should not happen. it’s all to appease a few who are not committed enough to study like everyone else. What a disgrace!”

“Agree, I have just applied for the very last subject – what a waste of my time and money. I am so angry that this was not put in place earlier.”

“Listen to the sound of lawyers rubbing their hands together. Watch for the class actions from advisers that are out of pocket for (now) unnecessary further education and advisers who have left the industry claiming lost earnings. This is such a bad look – watering down legislation, aiming to promote professionalism, at time when corporate greed is off the dial.”