So far, about 1,700 members of the Financial Planning Association’s 13,000-strong membership have told the association that the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) does not adequately recognise their additional and costly education in its guidance.
Accounting associations are fighting a similar battle for their members, frustrated that FASEA is grouping accountants who have postgraduate qualifications with financial advisers.
Most advice professionals, even those with double degrees and postgraduate qualifications, will still need to complete bridging courses by 2024.
The FPA also said members are in “disbelief” that a law degree is recognised as related study by FASEA, but specific masters-level training in financial planning is not.
The FPA, like accounting bodies, are likely protective of the relevance of their own education programs. However, in this case, there is support for recognition from professionals, and some foresee an advice exodus if further costly requirements are put to advice professionals.
“We feel like there is going to be a whole bunch of older financial planners who will soon hang up their boots depending on their current education requirements, especially with the average age of a financial planner being in the mid to late 50s,” said partner at Fortis Accounting Partners, John Kalachian late last month.
“In general, a lot of people will go out of the industry because of it but in saying that, there are opportunities there for other financial planners who want to embrace the further education standards,” he said.
“There’s going to be more people requiring the need of financial planning services that aren’t receiving that because there’s going to be less planners.”
katarina.taurian@momentummedia.com.au
Having a CPA designation doesn’t make you equipped to be a Financial Planner. Having a CPA FPS designation does. This along with the FPA’s CFP should be recognised as suitable qualification. They are both comprehensive training and assessment activity that should stand a professional in good stead to practice. Financial Planning is a complex area and specific training, coupled with appropriate experience is required.
The benchmark of requiring an AQF 8 in a relevant subject area is bureaucratic for existing practitioners. This should be the future state requirement for new practitioners. It is particularly concerning that FASEA is rearranging the deck chairs so early on. Let’s hope it is for the better however, they are right in stating they are only developing the legislation. The legislation missed the mark by not grandfathering and not recognising Advice Specialisation. FASEA could play an advocacy role as they uncover all the problems with implementation.
FASEA board includes three lawyers. Would that have anything to do with the recognition of a law degree as a ‘related study’?