Call to confine ‘experience pathway’ sunsetting to adviser association members
The sunsetting of the “experience pathway” can be imposed on financial advisers but it should not apply to stockbrokers and investments advisers, according to the Stockbroking and Investment Advisers Association (SIAA).
In doing so, the SIAA has claimed that over 290,000 clients across nine stockbroking firms would benefit from the “experience pathway” as it is currently being envisaged.
In a submission filed in response to the Financial Adviser Education Standards Consultation Paper, the SIAA made clear that it wanted no part of lobbying by other adviser organisations to impose a sunsetting clause to the experience pathway.
“We understand that other advice associations representing financial planners are advocating for a sunsetting clause to be applied to the experienced pathway and for advisers to undertake additional education before that date,” it said.
“We recommend that if they wish to apply a sunsetting clause to the members of their professional associations they should be allowed to do so. However, education standards best suited to financial planners should not again be imposed on other members of the advice profession when those standards do not suit the advice service that is being provided.”
“SIAA strongly opposes any sunsetting provision being applied to advisers who qualify for the experienced pathway. Once an adviser has satisfied the experienced pathway, they should be allowed to continue to provide advice to their clients in accordance with the provisions that apply to relevant providers, subject to continuing to undertake 40 hours of CPD annually,” the SIAA submission said.
The SIAA also drew upon analysis from WealthData to reinforce that stockbrokers and investments advisers were being handicapped by the limited range of degrees currently being recognised under the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority regime .
“The impact of FASEA’s one-size-fits-all approach to education on our profession is evidenced by recent analysis conducted by Wealth Data on advisers’ qualifications recorded on the FAR. The analysis shows that across all licensees with 80 or more financial advisers, only 18.7% of financial advisers had ‘approved’ degrees while 60.8% of financial advisers had degree qualifications of one sort or another that had not been ‘approved’.,” it said.
“The analysis shows that SIAA’s members have high percentages of degree-qualified advisers:
Morgans Financial (452 advisers) 71.9%
Ord Minnett Group (286 advisers) 61.2%
NAB (JB Were is the stockbroking arm —270 advisers) 87.4%
Shaw and Partners (181 advisers) 62.2%
Canaccord Genuity (113 advisers) 58.4%
Morgan Stanley (92 advisers) 70.7%
Evans and Partners (84 advisers) 86.9%
“Many other stockbrokers and investment advisers have degrees that are not recognised in any way,” it said.
“The statistics change dramatically if only ‘approved degrees’ according to the FASEA approach are taken into account:
Morgans Financial 29.6%
Ord Minnett Group 3.5%
NAB (JB Were is the stockbroking arm) 29.3%
Shaw and Partners 8%
Canaccord Genuity 8.8%
Morgan Stanley 28.3%
Evans & Partners 19%
“While the findings are reliant on advisers’ qualifications being accurately and completely recorded on the FAR to allow the analysis required to determine whether they are ‘approved’, they paint a stark picture nevertheless – the FASEA approach is not counting qualifications that matter.”
“if (other associations) wish to apply a sunsetting clause to the members of their professional associations they should be allowed to do so”
Brilliant point by SIAA!
The other point they should be highlighting is the rank hypocrisy of FPA in calling for a sunset on the experience pathway, while failing to sunset grandfathered CFPs.
I’m glad someone else has been here long enough to remember that the FPA allowed people to pay for their study notes and then sit a single exam to get their CFP designation, essentially a tick-a-box, multiple choice exam with a few short answer questions. Even in it’s current format the FPA CFP education content was not deemed to be at the required standard let alone back then. Sick and tired of all the self interested parties.
Stockbrokers want to call themselves advisers without being held to the same professional standards… that’s like a doctor wanting to do surgery without a medical degree… madness!
Your analogy is flawed… madness if you consider the differences between what stockbrokers advise their clients on and what “financial planners” do.
Then they aren’t financial planners and therefore should not be allowed to use that description.