Experience pathway status supressed on FAR
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) will soon have a clearer picture of just how many financial advisers are continuing to work in the profession by utilising the so-called “experienced adviser pathway”.
However, the Financial Adviser Register (FAR) maintained by ASIC will not display whether advisers are relying on the pathway meaning clients will not be able to differentiate.
ASIC has reminded financial planning licensees that as of 1 July, they are required to notify the regulator about instances where they have received a written declaration from a financial adviser that they are eligible to access the experience adviser pathway.
It said licensees have 30 business days to notify ASIC from the day they receive the declaration.
Financial advisers have been able to make written declarations accessing the pathway since 21 September, last year.
Financial advisers have been able to access the experienced provider pathway if they have been a relevant provider for at least 10 years and have a clean record.
The terms of the pathway require advisers to have passed the financial adviser exam.
The important fact missing from all this is advisers who qualify under the experience pathway still have until 31 Dec 2025 to complete the education requirements if they choose. There is no requirement for advisers to make a decision to use the experience pathway, or to formally notify their licensee, before then. ASIC will not know for sure how many advisers are using the experience pathway until Feb 2026.
I am still disgusted that as an industry we have this experience pathway. We had more than ample time to band together and for everyone to get on and do it. Before you come for me, I am more than eligible for the experience pathway given my 25 year tenure but I have worked my arse off to get the study done. I run my own business have 2 school aged children (with additional needs) and I still managed to do it. Thanks to those who didnt bother for watering down our industry. There is no way the can call themselves “professional”
agree 100%…..and look what the trade off was.. Qualified Advisers…and already 6-7 different pieces of adverse legislation.
I struggle to believe you really think the initial policy was sound. Ignoring all prior education and experience as a blanket ruling was completely unfair. I’m well under the 10 year eligibility but hold no grudges against those who now have their prior education and experience recognized. Perhaps it would have been fairer to have their credentials looked at for partial recognition but to just rule everything out was a crazy over reach.
I suspect it’s a case of sour grapes.
Yep, the ones who seem most indignant about the experience pathway are those who didn’t bother with any university level education until it became mandatory under the original FASEA rules, then carried on like born again religous zealots after they completed their Grad Dips. Their commitment isn’t to the cause of professionalism, it’s to the cause of “if I was forced to get educated against my will, then everyone else should be forced to do exactly the same as me”.
The ones who will benefit most from the experience pathway are those who voluntarily did higher education long before it was mandatory, and were denied credit for it due to corrupt FASEA trying to generate new revenue for suppliers associated with its Board.
I agree and more broadly speaking advisers should be united in pushing back against all of this regulatory and legislative over reach.
Other sections of the finance industry like mortage brokers and product providers have been able to fight back many of the proposed changes to their businesses while we just lie back and take it (often they’ve succeeded by scape goating us but I digress).
I know we don’t have the deep institutional pockets they do but we need to push as hard as we can with a united front.
Are you suggesting I am indignant? I have a degree, had it for years before it was required or even mentioned. I want there to be standardised education standards across the INDUSTRY so we can call ourselves a profession. And by the way if you are too lazy to upskill yourself over a 7 year period to a bare minimum standard thats not my issue
Well… you do sound a touch indignant.
If the “bare minimum” standard was defined based on knowledge areas and education levels, then that would be great. But it wasn’t. It was defined based on the commercial interests of corrupt FASEA Board members. That was not a standard worth aspiring to or defending. I’m quite confident my education standard that wasn’t fully recognised by corrupt FASEA, far exceeds that now required of new entrants. And my education has been constantly and relevantly upskilled through many years of CPD.
I’m more than happy to utilise the “experience pathway” rather than pay money to beneficiaries of the corrupt FASEA racket.
Why have I got sour grapes? I said I qualify under experience. If WE want to be recognised as a profession WE need to take the leap forward. Of course the legislation wasn’t perfect but it didn’t “ignore all prior education and experience as a blanket rule” as you say. It was an UPLIFT on the current standards
There were a significant number of advisers whose prior education and degrees were not recognized as they were too old/done too long ago. There was no recognition of those degrees nor the decades of experience they’d accrued, just a blanket ruling by an arguably conflicted FASEA board.
I fully support being recognized as a profession but don’t agree that lying down and accepting that kind of unfair treatment is in our interest. As for sour grapes, I was questioning whether you were annoyed you’d already done it when you didn’t need to in hindsight. Perhaps I’m wrong and you genuinely believe it’s the best way forward, in which case I apologize.
I believe the advice profession has, in good faith, taken on board endless waves of regulatory and legislative change over the last 6 years (and before). We’ve adapted our business models, incurred increased costs and pointless extra box ticking exercises in the name of professionalizing and compliance and for all of our hard work, stress and sacrifice, what do we get? We’ve been treated like criminals by Government and regulators, we’ve taken the blame for the wrong doing of large institutions while they get away scott free, and now the current Government is aiming to stack the deck against us with the DBFO proposals.
We can work all we want towards being considered a true profession but it will be of no benefit if the Government and regulator still treat us like criminals and push the industry towards vertically integrated, untrained product floggers paid by large institutions.
Thanks Edward, I think we are in 90% agreeance for the betterment of the industry. If you haven’t already watch some of Andrew Braggs Economics estimate committee you tube videos