FAAA maintains sunset clause stance on ‘experienced pathway’
The Financial Advice Association of Australia has reinforced the need for a 10-year sunset clause on the Government’s proposed ‘experienced pathway’.
In a submission responding to the Treasury consultation on the pathway, the FAAA has stuck by its position on the sunset clause, arguing it should be aimed towards helping older experienced planners.
The FAAA said that better targeting of the measure was needed.
“Implementing an appropriately targeted experienced pathway could help to offset the substantial decline in adviser numbers over recent years (down 45% since 1 January 2019),” FAAA chief executive, Sarah Abood said. “A significant number of older advisers, who might have left the profession, could now stay for longer – which will be good for them and for their clients, who may have gone unserved in the absence of this measure.”
“Consistent with our last submission, we believe that this measure should be better targeted to older advisers, with the inclusion of a 10-year sunset clause. This would represent an appropriate transition for established, experienced financial advisers and planners with a clean compliance record. Otherwise, we will be in a position whereby planners currently in their thirties could continue to practice indefinitely with no further qualifications required.
“In addition, a requirement to complete the Code of Ethics Graduate level subject would ensure that all practicing advisers have a shared understanding and body of knowledge of our legislated code.
“The experienced pathway proposal has divided our profession, and our membership. Our most recent survey showed that 50.9% of members are supportive of a pathway, and 49.1% are opposed. However the level of support would grow to 70% if both the sunset clause and ethics unit changes were incorporated.
“Much of the opposition to this proposal has been focused around the fear that this change will undermine the perception of financial advice as a profession. Substantial changes have been made in recent years to professionalise financial advice, with a big impact on the many who have invested time and money in completing the additional qualifications required under FASEA.”
“Our message to members is that we are a profession, and your clients acknowledge this. It does us no service with consumers to create a 2-tier system, using terminology that makes no sense to them. Many ‘relevant’ providers are also experienced. Many ‘experienced’ providers will also have qualifications. These points were very strongly made to us by members during this consultation.
“This is why we have also recommended that a distinction between “experienced” and “relevant” providers not be made on the FAR. It is time for us to come together as a profession and ensure consumers can have full confidence in their financial adviser who is registered and licensed to practice.
“We are keen to see the Government finalise this proposal soon, to enable financial advisers to make decisions about which pathway they will pursue. We trust that this certainty will help many to make the decision to stay within this important profession.
“We strongly support the technical fixes to address issues with new entrants and the tax qualifications for tax agents. Too many students are currently in ‘limbo’, uncertain about whether they qualify because of matters as minor as a change of course code or name. We suggest that these measures should also address complications for existing advisers in meeting the education standard,”Abood said.
These are the folk that need to be removed from the industry.
Sadly, the experienced professionals in our industry have now been contaminated by educated idiots like yourself!!!
“Otherwise, we will be in a position whereby planners currently in their thirties could continue to practice indefinitely with no further qualifications required” Ohhh no what a terrible prospect – I am a planner in my thirties, i have 10 years plus experience – will i meet the test for the sunset clause????? Who knows. New regulation released weekly – make up your minds!!!!! More experience than an old risk adviser trying to navigate the modern world of financial advice. Blanket policy is required. Age should be no measure… ridiculous!!!!!!
If you have that much time left in Industry, then do the Advice profession a service of getting educated.
8 subjects, less at least 2 exempt.
6 subjects max, surely if you are a Professional at Advice you can do that
Absolutely… age 30 is a lot different to age 60 and with 40 years’ experience…
Agree with the sunset clause, but a mandatory ethics subject is not needed. I got mine out of the way before the 10 year rule was floated. It was an utter waste of time and money. The FAAA should be focused on reforming the Code of Ethics so it is more workable, clear and less time consuming to adhere to.
Agreed it was a 20 hour course padded out to the max to make it 120 hrs.
More FARSEA rubbish
Can I have a refund please on the course costs and more so on my wasted economic time cost :-/
I’m fully quailed education wise and experienced wise but agree for older advisers in the experienced pathway.
I also agree with the Sunset Clause.
FAAA, it’s extremely hypocritical to call for a Sunset Clause for FARSEA education yet 20 years on there is no Sunset Clause for Grandfathered CFP
Yep, outrageous hypocrisy from FPA. How dare they lecture others about “professionalism” and “standards”, when their continued support of grandfathered CFPs directly undermines both.
No matter what happens with the experience exemption, FPA must start practising what they preach and put a sunset clause on grandfathered CFPs. By the same date as the FASEA deadline (31 Dec 2025) all grandfathered CFPs must complete education equivalent to the real CFP course to retain the designation. CFP units 1-4 all have equivalents in Grad Dips & Masters, so many grandfathers will have done this by then anyway. However CFP 5 (Certification) is a level above, and is what truly distinguishes the real CFP course as the highest standard in financial advice education. Only advisers who have completed it should be allowed to call themselves CFPs from 2026 onwards.
Getting closer…5 years would be more appropriate. Ten years is too long! There has been plenty of notice that an increased level of quals is not something that just been announced. Too many younger advisers have stuck their head in the sand hoping that something like this will happen and those who are committed to becoming part of the solution will pay the price of a lazy minority content to let the majority carry the load. A five year extension to 2026 is plenty of time to get any study requirements done. If you’re mid 50’s, that’s still plenty of time to recoup costs and effort to be part of the solution before they ride off into the sunset.
Your mistake is thinking that education is the cornerstone of professionalism, when in fact it is really defined by your actions.
Sadly, you choose to judge people you don’t know and don’t care for without any knowledge of who they are or what they stand for, nor how they’ve helped clients over many decades. This tells us more about you than what it tells us about them, so you might want to consider how you are showing your “professionalism”, or to be more accurate, lack of it.
I posted this to a similar discussion piece where many of you whinged & took umbrage that experienced planners may get to remain, despite not having a piece of paper. Apparently retaining experienced people is somehow threatening or offensive to you? Posting again and more than happy to debate any aspect of it.
There is one eternal truth across every conceivable ‘profession’; university graduates are essentially useless until they’ve practised for a number of years, when practical hands-on real life application and experience provides the true and necessary education.
I am a little baffled on comments on here and similar forums, why a number of planners (or union/industry super fund employees purposely stirring the pot) are so vitriolic against the experience pathway.
Via the pathway, if a larger cohort of experienced planners are enabled to continue providing quality advice for the next 10 – 15 years (most of those affected by the experience pathway will likely be finished by then as they’re roughly aged 47+), then how exactly is that a bad thing (with more clients out there than can be properly serviced by us all), and how does it affect you?
False arguments abound of ‘higher standards’ or ‘public protection’ (I’ve met world-class unethical lazy lying scumbags with impressive education credentials in my time), or ‘public opinion or perception’, (aside from left-leaning media and Labor/union/industry fund aligned consumer groups, the typical client cares only about what you can do for them and how much they trust you. And what a dumb, mentally lazy hollow argument; if the public cared so much, the non-degree experienced planners in question would already be out of business from lack of clients).
For those so blind, ignorant, biased or self-servingly self-righteous about their degree… get off your high-horse, get over yourself, it really doesn’t matter. It is an ignored expensive piece of paper that only 1 client in 1,000 even takes brief note of, that signifies you’ve passed a very basic form of ‘rote memory testing’ entry into a chosen field that was appropriate for the time you entered, which really has provided sparse real-world knowledge and even scarcer client benefit.
Let’s be honest, unless you graduated within the last 2 years, since your degree almost every single piece of legislation, planning process, analytical thinking methodology, guiding association policy and practical application has either already changed or about to be altered/modified.
Formal education is really the starting line and first ten metres of a career’s marathon.
Two more conversely conjunctive eternal truths; division within any group or ‘profession’ (or industry, for those still-screaming puritans), does nothing but weaken. Contrariwise, there is strength in numbers.
Without numbers, (not papers in frames), no political party and hence no governmental department gives a flying fig about any body, organisation or group.
And no, I am not an experience pathway candidate. I’m a highly successful FP business owner, nationally recognised independently awarded planner for almost 28 years, independently wealthy but still working full time in a very profitable specialised business I love, love the solutions and specific clients we deal with, and due to my own thirst for knowledge, have done all the required ‘degrees’ with two walls full of expensive papers hanging in frames, plus generally average about 80 – 100 CE points per annum.
For all that formal training, I have learned infinitely more from my own clients and situations I have been faced with throughout my tenure. Our business has a number of younger, even more highly qualified impressive planners, who will still come to me especially on complex cases, to draw on my real-world experience and extensive knowledge garnered over all those years dealing with so many varied situations. In our team meetings, we open the floor to everyone present including admin staff in case they have important knowledge or information to impart.
Rather than being either condescending or dismissive of other planners, at professional outings, I will happily sit down with anyone, be they old, ‘unqualified’ but experienced, or young, new, and highly educated to listen to what they may say in case I can learn something new or take with me a new angle or consideration that bears further thought. To their credit, the the young ones under me also hold this same view and none of us feel falsely threatened by another planner or firm, regardless of whether they are ‘educated’ or ‘experienced’.
You’ve got the degrees on the wall and have seen the benefit. Remember the old “it takes more to become a Hairdresser than an Adviser.” Well that’s still true today. It’s not about you. It’s about the public perception of US. If you can’t see the value in an industry becoming a profession (you may be a professional yourself) than I don’t want you in it, regardless of how successful your business is and how many degrees or years of experience you have.
Your reply states the entirety of your limited thought process around the issue, thank you.
Perfect singularity example of why narrow minded ‘education only’ zealots have no idea about what the public desire, need or deserve.
Please refer back to my above paragraph that addresses your ‘public perception’ argument (hint; it’s the one that discusses what a dumb, mentally lazy hollow argument).
Happy to debate any point in my original post or other. Next time, pen a more logical cohesive argument than ‘your feelings’ – maybe your mum can help.
What is ethics ? – its doing the right thing. Passing an ethics exam will do nothing if the person/organisation doesn’t adhere to this – unfortunately where $ are involved someone/somewhere will always look to “stick their hand into the cookie jar”. Look at current PWC issue and previous KPMG where it is alleged that > 100 people cheated in exams. As advisers we have to adhere to the FASEA 12 part Code Of Ethics, people who have already passed the FASEA exam which was made up of lots of ethical questions. Yes 40+ hours CPD every year. Every day I deal with a range of organisations (Fund Managers, Financial Institutions, Centrelink, etc.) who don’t do the right ethical thing & I have to waste my time getting following issues for clients so they get the correct result. So Professionalism & Ethics is what you do & how you carry yourself, not a piece of paper.
This is very well said and agree on all aspects, well done for promoting and understanding the importance of experience.
No. This is wrong. If they can’t pass the modern test, they should be gone.
Why does a recent entrant who has better education a related degree, have to go through all the ethics mumbo jumbo, and some old guy who has not done any training in over 10 years not have to do the unit of ethics.
This is crazy.
All the “old guys” who are eligible for the experience exemption have studied ethics at a level necessary to pass the ethics exam. Passing the exam is a prerequisite. They have also done considerable CPD training every year for at least the last 10, and most have have also done high quality degrees and other post grad level courses that FASEA refused to recognise.
Plenty of aspiring new entrants who have done “FASEA Approved” degrees, can’t even pass the exam.
2016 I was vocal for the experience way, but I say no to the 10 year experience now because there are benefits to all of us of having these minimum education standards. It wasn’t hard to complete and had plenty of time.
FASEA told me my qualifications were not valid…so after much letter writing about “experience and my course” I started doing study…a year later they came out and said they’re valid..now they’re telling me I didn’t need to do it in the first place…. You can’t write this stuff.
So..When is that CLASS ACTION starting please against the Directors of FARCEA? FASEA had one simple job. Determine the meaning of a Degree…Could have been a DFP plus experience, could have been a Bachelor of Commerce, could have been people who wear pink underpants. No they wanted a University lecture hall named after them for contributions to Griffith Uni so it’s a Bachelor of Financial Planning for you and you and you. These FASEA Directors are still out there making personal gains from it, and we’re sitting here hating each other because of there actions.
Agree… from the inception of FASEA, it was based upon conflicted interests.
THe submission fails to recognize the 40 hours per year compulsory CPD training plus the reading , experience , conferences and industry presentations
The 40 hour CPD is a joke and can be done in a few hours and there is not compulsory conferences or industry presentation. If you claim you are a good adviser cause of your handful of units and few CPD points you are kidding yourself
I find it disgraceful that a body established to promote professionalism in our industry supports these watered down education standards. Until we have this as an “industry” we will never be a profession