ASIC warns on false adviser qualifications entries on FAR
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has pointed to errors on the Financial Adviser Register (FAR) and is asking licensees to assess the accuracy of records on their financial advisers foreshadowing a crackdown on adviser qualification entries.
ASIC says the problems were identified as part of a spot check which found issues around qualifications and training courses being marked as “approved” when, in many cases, they were not.
Common errors include:
- some of the qualifications marked as ‘approved’ did not accurately match the wording of the course in the Corporations (Relevant Providers Degrees, Qualifications and Courses Standard) Determination 2021 (the Determination),
- some of the qualifications marked as ‘approved’ were not approved qualifications, they were professional designations (e.g. ‘Certified Financial Planner’),
- some of the qualifications marked as ‘approved’ were not, in isolation, approved qualifications, they were bridging courses. These may be listed in the Determination but are required to be coupled with another qualification to meet the requirements of the professional standard, and
- some of the qualifications marked as ‘approved’ were not approved qualifications under the Determination (examples include: the Financial Adviser Exam, Australian Qualifications Framework 1-5 qualifications, and Regulatory Guide 146 training/qualifications).
“ASIC is also aware of instances where AFS licensees have not ensured that the contact details of their financial advisers are up to date,” the regulator said.
“AFS licensees are urged to immediately check all the information recorded about their financial advisers on the Financial Advisers Register, with a particular focus on the adviser’s approved qualification(s), ability to provide tax (financial) advice services, business address and telephone number.”
Guidance is available on the ASIC website on how to check an adviser’s qualifications against the Determination and how to determine if an adviser can provide tax (financial) advice services.
Any incorrect or out of date information must be rectified by lodging a ‘maintain’ transaction via ASIC Connect. Only one fee applies if multiple pieces of information are updated in a single transaction.
It is a serious offence to knowingly provide false or misleading information to ASIC or to fail to take reasonable steps to ensure that the information provided to ASIC is true and correct. It is also an offence to fail to update the Financial Advisers Register within 30 business days of a financial adviser’s details changing.
ASIC said that from 1 August 2024, it will commence a compliance program to ensure that the information recorded on the Financial Advisers Register about approved qualifications is correct and will consider enforcement action where necessary.
“This will remain a key focus for ASIC in the lead up to 1 January 2026, when all financial advisers must comply with the qualification standard, either by completing an approved qualification, by completing qualifications the Minister has determined to be equivalent to an approved qualification for existing advisers, or by accessing the experienced provider pathway. “
ASIC once again focusing its limited resources on the most important, big ticket items. Never mind people being scammed by dodgy investment products/providers, there are some slight errors on the FAR!
So true.
Well said.. spot on.. but Limited Resources ? Well perhaps if the registrations Team, and Licensing team and the authorizations team were consolidated they’d have enough resources but the more people working for the Government, Comrade the better.
CFP ?
Isn’t that one of the reasons folks were encouraged to stay when the FPA went to the FAAA?
I have been in the industry for 40 plus years and I have never been so confused
CFP is a designation, but “CFP Certification Program” (the 5 unit CFP course) is listed in the Designation as study that can be approved in combination with some other courses.
For example if you had CFP Certification Program in combination with a non relevant degree, ADFP, and 3 bridging courses, then all 6 of those courses would be approved. If you only had 5 of those 6 then none of them would be approved until you had the full set.
If you had a recent Bachelors, Grad Dip, or Masters majoring in Financial Planning, then CFP Certification Program would not be approved, as it is not needed to achieve an “equivalent qualification”. Nor would other specialist courses or additional degrees not majoring in financial planning.
So advisers with recent financial planning degrees should only ever have one approved course on their FAR listing, regardless of how much other study they have done, otherwise their licensee may be “guilty of a serious offence”.
Apparently this sort of bureaucratic madness is what ASIC thinks is more important than protecting consumers from scams and unlicensed advice.
Oh yeah it’s so valuable it got a whole 2 credits from FASEA lol.
You’re putting faith in the competence, and honesty of FASEA to assess the value of courses?
Only providing 2 credits to the 5 unit AQF 8 level CFP Certification Program is one example among many that proved how incompetent and corrupt FASEA was. No wonder the previous government was in such a hurry to shut FASEA down before anyone was held to account.
It’s also partly why the current government introduced the “experience pathway”, which allows many highly educated advisers that were disadvantaged by FASEA’s corruption, to avoid repeating studies they have already done. The experience pathway was a simpler solution than going back and fixing FASEA’s many mistakes.
Great job ASIC, you pillocks. As weak an organisation as it gets.
Still spending all your time focusing on the windscreen scratches instead of working to improve and GROW the financial services industry with your relentless taxing of the 1% with your bogus and highly offensive and unethical Funding Levy.
What will you do when there’s no-one left in Australia to provide financial advice because you successfully drove everyone out? No-one is entering the industry now and you’re driving everyone out. Your model of relentlessly attacking advisers in this industry is unsustainable.
Every action has an equal or greater REACTION, ASIC….remember that!
“What will you do when there’s no-one left in Australia to provide financial advice because you successfully drove everyone out?” – They will celebrate that they have succesfully achieved their goal.
Your comments are so true!
I am so very, very tired of this god forsaken industry.
ASIC is a disgrace.
I have 3 degrees, tax, accounting & financial planning but am still not qualified according to ASIC !! Which fool in there right mind would join this industry or become a financial planner?? I am now going to become a professional scammer and deal with payments of Bitcoin 🤣🤣🤣
I’m confused because when I look at the FAR it only says “qualifications and training”. There is nothing about “approved”…
I’d ring ASIC but I’d be on hold for an hour and the last time I rang about a Financial Scam operating that cost people millions, via an active NAB account, they yawned at me, (imagine if you rang the Police about the woman next door being raped, and they said nap time go away)….. and I know there are 3 ASIC websites so what am I missing here.
Having worked in Banks and the finance industry for two decades, ASIC inaction cost Australians millions. They’re criminals in my book.
I take issue with the use of the word false, especially when there is nothing false about undertaking additional training to improve your skills set above and beyond that of a university degree.
A few years ago I spoke to my licensee about Kaplan’s ALPA.
I had completed this but it wasn’t mentioned on my FAR.
Then I noted my mate had done it but it was on his FAR.
My licensee said that ALPA shouldn’t have been included on the FAR.
I reckon it was about 4 years ago I had this conversation. Where was ASIC then?