Will ‘experience pathway’ detail generate more adviser exits?
The long-delayed ministerial announcement around the “experienced pathway” is now looming as the next event to influence financial adviser longevity on the Financial Adviser Register, as the latest data confirms licensee churn continues but adviser numbers have stabilised.
The Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones has used post-Quality of Advice Review (QAR) conference to indicate an announcement on the “experienced pathway” is imminent and it is one of the few elements capable of immediately influencing career decision-making.
A significant number of advisers have told Financial Newswire that their decision-making around their continuing career in financial planning will be strongly influenced by the detail of the “experienced pathway”, particularly with respect to any sunset clauses or other caveats on the process initially outlined by Jones, involving having passed the adviser exam, 10 years’ experience and a clean compliance record.
The consultation process around the ‘experienced pathway closed in mid-September last year with Treasury describing the proposed measure as an “election promise”.
The latest WealthData analysis of the Financial Adviser Register (FAR) compiled by Colin Williams reveals that, for the first time since the advent of the financial adviser exam, numbers have remained static.
Key Adviser Movements This Week:
-
Net Change of advisers “No Change”
-
Net Change of +52 for 2023 YTD
-
24 Licensee Owners had net gains for 25 advisers
-
20 Licensee Owners had net losses for (-26) advisers
-
2 new licensees and 2 ceased
-
5 Provisional Advisers commenced and zero ceased
-
Number of advisers active this week (appointed / resigned) 69.
Summary
The first ‘zero’ change week that I can recall since putting out the weekly updates. We still saw 69 advisers who either resigned or were appointed and that number has been hovering around 70 for the past few weeks.
Growth This Week
-
Capstone was the only licensee owner to grow by more than 1 by having growth of +2, both advisers from separate licensees
-
23 licensee owners up by +1 each including Morgans Group, AMP Group, Unisuper and Canaccord
-
The 2 new licensees both commenced with 1 adviser each
Losses This Week
-
WT Financial group were down by (-4), losing 5 and hiring 1. The losses were at Sentry and it appears that a practice has decided to open up their own AFSL and we expect their data to appear next week. Details given to members
-
NAB Group down (-2), losing 1 at JBWere and the other from the bank itself.
-
Sequoia down (-2) after losing 2 at Libertas. Note: Sequoia are also moving advisers from Libertas to Interprac.
-
Troy Macmillan (TWD Licensee services) also down (-2)
-
16 licensee owners down (-1) including Clime Group, Macquarie Group and Findex Group. Insignia also down net (-1) after hiring 4 and losing 5.
-
The two licensees that closed were both 1 adviser models.
There’s a reason we haven’t seen them. There was no consensus, it’s the third rail at this point, and the Minister is not going to actually do anything! Start studying!
It’s a total charlie foxtrot.
Anyone who has been in the game pre the introduction of AFSL’s (that’s 2002) should be made exempt from all this BS.
The only people who should be going through all this stuff are newbies but the industry has seen most of the experienced advisers either quit or move to general advice meanwhile people get their ‘advice’ from newbies who have never experienced a real bear mkt.
Again, the loser is the client because they are being advised by UNI grads with no mkt experience.
To be fair, I think anyone who was in the “game” as you call it pre 2002 is the reason we need the qualifications uplift. Unqualified salespeople making a mess for everyone else to clean up.
Before you cry foul, I have been licensed since 2000 and have taken the time to build my skills and am a unit and a bit away from meeting the standards. get off your butt, stop complaining and help drag this industry towards a profession
I started in 1996. I have 2 degrees (1 is commerce), taught at university for 2 yrs (2002/2003), have published a book on derivatives in 2000 have run 3 AFSL firms (still have my main created in 2006). done thousands of CPD hrs and being told by some bureaucrat i now need to have some BS diploma and pass some exam that doesn’t even cover the field I’m in order to continue to provide personal advice is total BS
There are two clear dilemma’s facing Steven Jones…
The first is that there are a number of advisers (around 10,000 I’d estimate) who are either completing or facing the prospect of having to complete a Masters or equivalent by 2026. The experience pahway would negate them needing to complete this or at a minimum the Masters Level Professionalism and Ethics course at a cost of arounf $2,500 per subject!
This was my only outstandingrequirement to complete having already obtained a relevant degree (B.Com), Adv Dip in Financial Services, CFP accreditation (the hard way) and F.Ch(FP and SMSF designation’s. I have a full practice – cannot really take on any more clients, have our own AFSL and the significant annual costs of running the business. Yes, I’m hanging on anticipating the industry becoming a profession and with that the change to a principles based code of ethics which should see a less ‘rules-based’ approach to regulating the industry. If this happens, then I am possibly one of approximately 5000 advisers currently qualified in terms of 2026 requirements. I will stay in the industry.
But, here is the second dilemma facing Steven Jones, he already knows (or should know), that around 1000 advisers who passed the FASEA exams have quit the industry. These ex-advisers found careers where government bullies don’t operate, where regulator overreach & publicly naming and shaming people for non-detrimental mistakes made (while generally doing an exemplary job) allows them to sleep peacefully at night.
If the CSLR and the ASIC funding plus extremely high compliance costs, costs of mental health. high toll on relationships/marriages continues unabated because the industry cannot move to being a profession the outcome will be poor and a blight on government.
Fewer advisers mean fewer Australians get advise.
Fewer advisers means cost of advice goes up and will remain only available for the rich.
Fewer advisers means poorer alocation of financial resources in the secondary economy reducing liquidity in the capital raising and debt creation primary markets. Worse off economy.
Stephen Jones needs to figure out how to do this right…or he will go down as the worst financial services minister in history. The QAR has failed the australian community and advice community in this respect – I had so much hope when Michelle Levy said she was in favour of a principles-based approach. Then she opened advice up to unqualified, self-interested and conflicted parties.
If the government was truly interested in making advice more affordable and accessible they would embrace some of the following:
Re. “worst financial services minister in history’ the Lib’s have a few candidates for that, and I’m normally a Liberal voter!
remember also, not everyone is a Fin Planner. I’m a stockbroker and have a totally different skill set to a fin planner but we can put in the same bucket as them
If you claim to be a Sovereign Citizen, i’d think that would make you exempt from any such Govt rules : – )
No seriously, anyone under 50 should just do the study.
Those older and closer to retirement have far less time to make it cost beneficial to do the study. It’s the time cost that is the real killer.
And with the most hard fought yet still moronic and stingy recognition of prior learning, it was another Govt stitchup.
Let’s never forget FARSEA’s first public comment – Any Degree older than 10 years counts for nothing, All start Uni again from scratch. WTF. Yeh let’s have all Federal Govt Uni degree’s rendered useless every 10 years, so every Dr, Lawyer, Accountant, Engineer, etc All start Uni again from scratch every 10 years. That is the utter BS rubbish FARSEA stated.
Right Govt Policy, (15 – 20 years too late) with moronic implementation.
So someone who is 52 and has 15 years to reap the benefits should be exempt?????? Give me a spell
Um, you mean, “FASEA” – you did pass, right?
I mean FARSEA, because it’s a total FARCE
But yeh mate I passed and am very well edumecated too, so much so I can nearly spell : – )