More than 1,000 fewer advisers predicted for 2026

Financial adviser numbers are heading for another cliff, with new data analysis suggesting that the adviser market is on the verge of a significant contraction caused by the 1 January, 2026, education requirements.
The bottom line generated by the Padua WealthData analysis is that there will likely be more than 1000 fewer advisers on the Financial Adviser Register.
Padua’s Forecast for 2026
- A ‘best case’ Adviser Population of 14,567 and this is currently 892 fewer than today’s total of 15,459.
- When a series of ‘what if’ scenarios are performed, the net loss can easily jump in excess of 1,600.
- Adding together the most realistic outcomes across all categories the net loss range will be between 1,100 and 1,500.
The analysis, conducted by Padua’s WealthData, suggests the looming losses will redefine adviser capacity, business models and consumer access to advice.
WealthData principal, Colin Williams has described it in the following way:
Comparing ASIC’s November point-in-time data with today’s FAR, we have identified the three clear adviser cohorts (see also chart below):
- 5,179 advisers intend to use the Experienced Pathway (EP)
- 6,469 advisers say they will not use the EP
- 3,981 advisers have provided no information
The responses above total 15,629 adviser entries, exceeding the actual adviser population of 15,459 due to multi-authorised advisers supplying conflicting data to ASIC. Note: We adjust for these duplicates in the “No Info” segment.
We have also broken the data down further into sectors by commencement dates of advisers, to assist in determining the potential of additional advisers who may be able to proceed with the EP. We have also segmented by qualifications, noting that ASIC’s “qualification progressing toward standards” flag does not guarantee an adviser will be fully qualified for 2026.
Our analysis breaks the data into three core segments:
A — Advisers Intending to Use the Experienced Pathway
- 5,179 advisers have said they will rely on the EP.
- 59 advisers passed the Financial Adviser Exam after the cut-off (Oct 2022) to qualify for the EP
- 183 advisers appear to have commenced after Jan 2011 (potentially ineligible)
FAR commencement dates can be unreliable, so EP declarations will be the stronger indicator — but not all who said “Yes” will qualify.
B — Advisers Who Will Not Use the EP
- 6,469 advisers have declared they will not use the EP, and 91% hold qualifications counting toward 2026.
- This group appears relatively stable
Together, cohorts A and B total 11,648 advisers and we would expect the greater majority to continue into 2026
C — No Info – Advisers Who Have Not Declared Their Intentions
- After adjusting for duplicates, some 3,811 advisers fall into the “No Info” category:
- 1,523 advisers potentially qualify for the EP (commenced pre-Dec 2011)
- An additional 1,396 advisers with qualifications that indicate they may progress toward 2026
- 2919 advisers in this cohort may able to proceed into 2026.
This group remains the largest uncertainty.
Padua’s Forecast for 2026
- A ‘best case’ Adviser Population of 14,567 and this is currently 892 fewer than today’s total of 15,459.
- When a series of ‘what if’ scenarios are performed, the net loss can easily jump in excess of 1,600.
- Adding together the most realistic outcomes across all categories the net loss range will be between 1,100 and 1,500.









All this detailed analysis and scenario modelling, but no consideration of the fact many of the FAR registrants who don’t meet any of the qualifying criteria are not actually advisers at all.
A reduction of 1,000 or so names from FAR on 1 Jan, will NOT be a loss of 1,000 advisers.
I feel sorry for those that remain, terrible occupation and only going to get worse once ASIC blame others for Shield / First Guardian
Sure feels that way. Particularly at the moment.
Not sure why I bothered doing a Masters Degree.
Yep – terrible occupation and it does not need to be this way.
Really easy to fix.
Sadly, after 38 years, I to will be leaving the FAR as a risk only adviser, come the new year.
I do not look forward to having to pay in excess of $10,000 pa for a commbination of ASIC litigation funder the levy and the CLSR courteesy of my old mate Daryl Dixon
What really annoys me is that I don’t provide investment advice, yet because I am on the FAR, I will still have to pay the Dixon Levy, while the FSC continues to argue for the exemption of the fund managers who actually design and issue these failed investment products. And yes I have qualified for the EP
And if my fellow experiienced risk-only advisers continue to flock to the quicksand that is general advice, then advice per se will conttinue to be underated