AFA slams Fairfax over FChFP claims

While the statement references only an unnamed “media article”, The Australian Financial Review and Business Day yesterday ran an article arguing that “the difference between a CFP and FChFP is massive, with the latter enabling planners without degrees to do four subjects of a non-technical nature and meet the 'new' requirements set by the institutions”.

The comments sparked a war of words on Twitter between AFA and FPA members, with AFA chief executive Brad Fox rebuking article author Adele Ferguson for disregarding the “facts”.

The official statement from the AFA explains that the FChFP is focused on technical content as well as professionalism, including units on ethics.

“A media article today wrongly reported that the AFA’s FChFP enables advisers without degrees to complete four subjects of a non-technical nature and that not one of these subjects requires an ethics component,” Mr Fox said.

“This is quite simply wrong – in fact, the FChFP does require extensive technical knowledge assessment and ethics, subject four, which represents one quarter of the designation, is focused on ethics and professional conduct and the entire course is set at the Masters level.

“It is very disappointing to see inaccurate reporting around an issue as important as financial adviser education.”