The conditions academics have urged on ‘experienced pathway’
Financial planning academics told the Government they believe the Financial Adviser Register (FAR) should differentiate between advisers who are practicing because of the ‘experienced pathway’ and those who have not.
The Government has yet to reveal the final shape of its legislation delivering the so-called ‘experienced pathway’ but it has made public the submissions commenting on its exposure draft legislation and that from the Financial Planning Education Council (FPEC) makes clear the view of academics.
The submission, authored by seven academics and supported by more than 40 others, says that clients and consumers would be interested to know if their advisers holds appropriate formal qualifications, and this could be highlighted in the Financial Adviser Register.
If the requirement to complete formal study is removed, we believe we need to have the means to recognise and differentiate those advisers who had completed the additional qualifications from those who have used the experience pathway.
Further, the submission said that “if the requirement for existing advisers to hold a FAS-approved qualification is to be removed, we recommend, as a minimum, that all advisers seeking to take the experienced financial adviser pathway be required to complete a FAS-approved bridging ethics unit”.
“If existing advisers applying under this education pathway do not undertake a formal qualification, but rather rely on their experience as demonstrating competency, we strongly recommend the inclusion of a sunset clause to place a time limit of ten years on existing advisers to utilise this pathway,” it said. “This will contribute to ensuring that consumer trust in financial advice as a profession is not diminished.”
The submission also argued that the 10 years’ experience criteria proposed in the exposure draft legislation be client-facing.
“The adviser should be required to demonstrate ten years’ experience in a client-facing adviser role, working with clients to develop goals, objectives, and needs and utilising their knowledge and skills to develop appropriate strategies, product comparisons and recommendations. A broad requirement of ten years’ full-time equivalent work experience is insufficient to demonstrate possession of the appropriate knowledge and competencies required of a professional financial adviser. We also believe it is important that the scope, quantum and quality of the adviser’ experience be documented and assessed by the AFSL holder.”
“Finally, we would recommend some form of independent attestation of an adviser’s clean disciplinary record, rather than simply relying upon the adviser’s self-declaration. We recommend this be undertaken by the Australian financial services licensee who authorises that adviser as their representative.”
I think this is petty. I have completed my Grad Dip and would have also qualified, should legislation allows the indidcated path, to have been able to continue working without completing the education.
Whilst i am p’ed off in doing the education, i can say the education did not provide me any clearer direction or additional information on how i could do my job better. Some of the education was clearly a money spinner for the Educators.
We all do practical education through CPD’s and other investment providers which have provided more valuable education that the stupid paper we were told we HAD to get.
Time, experience and focus on how we can do better with our client engagements provided the most value that any education i received.
I can put my education qualifications next to my name on my business card, but it does not make me a better Planner.
Well said “ get on with life “ and very true I sense a touch of vindictive jealousy in these so called conditions they want included
Between ASIC paying multiple so called Academics for submissions to FARSEA = Corruption.
To so called Academics and FARSEA making recognition of prior learning so stupidly narrow & limited.
It seems obvious that All ASIC staff and Academics should complete an ETHICS course themselves.
FARSEA was right policy (20 years to late), but totally hijacked by ASIC, Academics and Choice to create the debacle that we have had.
FARSEA, Academics and ASIC should be held to account for what they have done. Shame on you all.
Yes very petty! They didn’t get their way with the $money$ gravy train they wanted so now this. Haha
I think it a great idea actually, this will allow clients to see which advisers have REAL experience of more than 10 years versus learning from these so called learned experts who have never done a real damn case in their lives let alone thousands of client cases!!!!!
They should all p!$$ off.
I qualify through both the experience and education pathways, but I’m thinking I may be better off listing myself as “experienced” on FAR, as that will be more appealing to most prospective clients. Maybe not to academics or regulators, but who wants those arrogant pains as clients!
Sounds like the academics and ‘others’ are still trying to squeeze more dollars out of the system by suggesting yet another ‘ethics’ course – how ludicrous!
And the sunset clause is redundant logic – if 10 years experience is appropriate to help clients now, why would 20 years experience be inappropriate on some arbitrary date in the future?
As per all pure ‘academics’, they’re full of theory but little practicality, logic or commercial reality – hence why they can do nothing but ‘teach’.
Is it ethical to campaign the government, in a quest to boost your revenue, by making another industry sit a compulsory ethics unit?
Those who know – do. Those who don’t – teach!
That’s why they’re academic.
There’s a difference between practice and theory.
Doesn’t this imply that the people who taught you all those years ago did not know what they were doing?!?
I know from personal experience the benefits of on-the-job training/apprenticeship, but it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be and there are significant benefits to higher education as well. There are also a lot of industry professionals teaching at university.
It is certainly a tricky topic given the financial and non-financial (e.g., time and effort) costs of obtaining a degree and the fact that many existing advisers have considerable expertise beyond that taught at university. Of course, much that will be taught in higher education may not be new or particular challenging to an existing adviser, but it ensures a certain standard consumers (and licensees for that matter) can rely upon when choosing advisers.
Would you trust a GP or surgeon without formal education but who has successfully (illegally) worked in the field for the past 10 years? This is not an hypothetical examples, it happens quite often actually. Or would you trust a bush mechanic without a formal education with your Mercedes?
The problem is not that one is better or less trustworthy than the other, the problem is where financial advisers see themselves in the future: as an industry or a profession. Consumers certainly care about this.
I’ll ask the obvious question. There is anyone know of any formal qualifications for life risk specialist advisers who do not do investment advice?
The first thing such a requirement would do would make those few life risk advisers still in the business have to go and get formal qualifications for an advice field into which they will never enter. Marvellous !!!!!
Does anyone know of formal qualifications for neurosurgeons, cardiologists, ENT specialists, orthopaeidic surgeons, or haematologists, that don’t require a general medical degree as a foundation?
Authored by seven academics & supported by more than 40 others but not a single consumer submission? So surprising there’s a recommendation for mandatory education. Who will supply that I wonder? A great example of conflict of interest for the ethics course.
There were probably other submissions by so called “consumer groups” but as we all know, they have been hijacked by career political activists pushing their own narrow ideological agenda, and no longer represent the real interests of consumers.
It’s no wonder we have a regulatory environment that makes it too difficult for most consumers to access affordable professional advice, when policy formulation is driven by lobby groups motivated by narrow self interest and ideological extremism. The only participants in the policy formulation process who actually do represent consumers are elected politicians. Politicians need to stop listening to lobbyists, and start listening to real consumers in their electorates.
I didn’t need to sit the Fasea exam to spot the conflict in interests in this proposal. Sort of proves the point.
A bunch of broke Academics dictating Advisers future….Young People don’t go to Uni they go to tafe and become Carpenters and make more money then you and I make and hence these Academics jobs are on the line. I know I spent 15 years as a casual.
Why do Financial Planners continue to allow people with half an idea (and the ones with half idea are the most dangerous), and have obviously a conflicted interest, whether in this case, it’s academics or the super fund industry this year…or AMP et al last decade…and continue to allow them to shape there futures ? Are Financial Planners the laziest, the stupidest people on earth ? Financial Planners must be the most inward looking and selfish individuals to allow that type of outside influence to continue, given the massive detriment it has, not only on there peers, but importantly Australians. What’s next ? “Super funds providing Advice” that’s going to work out well for everyone isn’t it ? I can see Australian Super at the 2028 royal commission taking a leaf out of CBA books saying It’s not us it’s “Financial Advisers” and planners being forced back to Uni. When is that mentality of Financial Planners not having a voice and strong advocacy ever going to stop ?