FASEA has failed say survey respondents

As many as three-quarters of financial advisers will need to spend time and money on pursuing degrees or bridging courses under the new Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority regime, according to the preliminary results of an ongoing Money Management survey of adviser intentions.

The survey, which is still open here, has confirmed the degree to which the FASEA regime is likely to prove a boon to education providers, nearly 40 per cent of respondents indicating they have some form of degree qualification but with even well over half of them still facing the need to undertake further study.

What is more, the comments attaching to survey response makes clear just how angry advisers are with the FASEA, with the common theme being that the participants accept the rationale for the FASEA regime but believe that the authority has gone exceeded its brief and, in doing so, has caused havoc and confusion.

As one respondent stated: “We are now 3 weeks into the two year exam window, and we have nothing, not even study materials and there is no avenue of study or safety net for those who fail more than twice”.

The survey has also confirmed the significant levels of continuing confusion among planners, with many expressing frustration that the FASEA has still not released enough information for them to make career-defining decisions.

One respondent stated: “Even though I’ve got an approved degree (master of FP) the unit codes I completed do not match those that FASEA have published and I was given some exemptions for RPL so despite having read most of the information released by FASEA I’m actually confused as to what study I will need to do. Very frustrating!”

“I'm still not 100 per cent sure of my future education/bridging requirements,” said one respondent while another stated: “Terrible communication. Not clear or concise. Different information and direction provided which is extremely contradictive.”

“Desperately need clarification on whether my degree will be assessed as relevant. No clarity on this for nearly 2 years. Hold a Commerce degree and confident I have sufficient subjects to meet 8 subjects to be deemed relevant but how to get confirmed??” complained another respondent.

Recommended for you




I was being told $1200 per unit, now I am hearing Kaplan charging $1800 a unit.

...try $2,325 per unit.

Actually, 100% of advisers are impacted by FASEA. Every Adviser needs to sit an exam and complete the Ethics subject regardless of their qualifications. Apparently, the many exams I have completed at a Masters level don't count for anything.

But don't worry doing an ethics course (again) will magically make all advisers ethical! Will the management at all licencees, banks, fund managers, insurers etc have to do the ethics course too? The royal commission seemed to show more ethical issues with them rather than advisers.

But of course all advisers will need to study and sit an ethics course... we all know that you can teach ethics! If you see some of the recent articles (in the past week) regarding advisers who can no longer advise, they held a CFP designation (which one subject is ethics) but were somehow unethical. Wait, what?!

No, ethics is NOT a subject taught in the CFP Designation. It is in the CFP Certification course. They are different things. Some people with CFP Designation obtained it by completing the postgrad CFP Certification course. Others were gifted CFP Designation with minimal education.

So all advisers will need to take extra time away from their clients to do study, for many covering things already covered in previously completed courses or practical experience. Education providers get a free kick, many who make up the FASEA board who set these rules, just to provide a piece of paper to saying an adviser is now competent to give the advice they have been doing for years.
Can someone please explain to me again how this is in the best interest for clients and not a conflict of interests for the education providers on FASEA?

I am in the same boat as the adviser mentioned in the article, with subjects that don't match the list and exemptions for RPL which don't seem to be allowed for past degrees. I would love to know the total number impacted. I find it hard to believe FASEA and the universities aren't aware of this hidden catch that will force heaps of us degree qualified planners back to uni to repeat our degrees. It appears to be a blatant money grabbing exercise. Not a good look for a board with such strong links to universities. Perhaps they should be forced to complete this ethics subject first!!!

I am advocate for the increase education standards, but before all jump down my throat.
Raising of standards needs to be carried across all aspects of the industry especially the ethic element.(Will it fix it no, but it is start) The RC clearly showed that Bedrock Institutions whom argue about how many time they lied to the regulator have mountains to answer for and helped creating the current environment.
Where the Adviser wear the Burden of Responsibility, but some long term Product provider are the real Culprit.
Prior learning and recognition of degree need further clarity.
But Lets not kids ourselves this is to be a clear sweep of the table and rebuild from the ashes.
Both Good and Bad advisers, young and old.
It is to Destroy and start again, Good Fortune everyone out there

Happy to sit the Ethics courses........ when do the politicians sit theirs.

What qualifications in Financial Planning etc did Kelly O'Dwyer have when she made ill informed ridiculous decisions that affect this industry. Maybe Politicians should have some qualifications in the areas of their portfolio's ?

Who let the Education foxes into the FASEA henhouse !! Wow, talk about a conflict !!

FASEA has indeed become a con job. When you have extremely well qualified (degree qualified) and experienced advisers having to retake a degree its a failure. Slasher O'Dwyers supposed brief was to make every adviser degree qualified? Most are but now they are not? This is just more corruption by FASEA for the benefit if educators. It won't be 25% of advisers leaving the industry, try well over 50% because many will fail through "the journey" for financial or personal reasons (say for example juggling a business and a family). Many will give up trying to re-qualify in areas that are useless to them (e.g. risk advisers). In six years only the rich will be able to afford financial advice. The average mum and dads will have no hope.

Add new comment