Planners unhappy with FASEA’s regime

Money Management asked its readers via an online survey about their sentiment regarding the impact of the new Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA), their plans under the new regime, and their thoughts on the Authority’s performance.

The survey, for which close to 90 per cent of respondents were planners, particularly aimed to capture what proportion of planners were considering leaving the industry before 2024 due to the higher education standards, as well as the general sentiment among those who would stay and what the new reforms would mean for them.

Below are some highlights from the survey.

Industry departures

According to the survey’s full results, of those who declared they would most likely depart the industry, 80 per cent said that their decision was driven by the new education standards proposed by the FASEA.

At the same time, it should be mentioned that this number was much lower than what planners indicated in similar surveys in the closing months of 2018, with only 30 per cent of planners declaring an intention to leave the industry before 2024.

Educational demands 

Money Management also asked those participants who declared they would stay in the industry what further study they would be required to undertake under the new regime.

The result showed that almost 60 per cent would need to do at least one FASEA bridging course or Approved Graduate Diploma (GDip) with some variations due to credits and/or ADFP (the Advanced Diploma of Financial Planning).

Following this, another 13 per cent of respondents said they would need to do another approved Graduate Diploma (GDip).

Other educational requirements planners would be undertaking were three FASEA bridging courses (eight per cent), three FASEA bridging courses and one FASEA-approved unit (six per cent) and a bachelor degree (close to three per cent).

Around four per cent of respondents said they would need to apply for Department of Education and Training (DET) and Standards Body assessment and pursue a subsequent FASEA pathway, while 3.21 per cent said they would not be required to undertake any further studies in the face of the new regime. Six per cent said it was not clear to them what steps they should take. 

Kaplan the institution of choice

Further to that, the majority of those who said they would need to pursue either a Graduate Diploma or Bachelor degree, would look to enrol in Kaplan Professional (60 per cent), with 23 per cent currently undecided a and further 22 per cent declaring that they would consider going back to university.

Is FASEA a failure?

According to the majority of respondents (57 per cent), FASEA failed to meet its objectives, with a further 30 per cent declaring that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the above statement. Only 13 per cent expressed their approval regarding FASEA’s new requirements.

Of those who were negative, the majority of planners complained about the absence of decent communication resulting in confusion, as well as lack of proper recognition by FASEA of their prior learning and, in some cases, decades of experience. 


Recommended for you




This is not unexpected as many planners do have relevant post-school and post-graduate qualifications. In addition most planners have been regularly attending fund and industry briefings. So by 2024 this issue of education requirements should be over. Within five years after 2024, the whole issue of professional education will be forgotten.
Generally I am ok on the education requirements proposed although I think there should be more on macro economics, industry economics and business economics as I have found planners to be light on in these areas and therefore a bit underdone doing giving long term perspectives on where industries and businesses are going for investment and profit purposes.
Another area to be added would be about technologies such as AI, automation, machine learning, etc as technologies impacts and disruptions affect investment decisions as much as politics.

Add new comment