According to the draft legislation released last week, the transition pathway for existing advisers will begin in 2017, with a 2019 deadline. Advisers without a degree or equivalent will have two years to complete any further study as well as pass an exam.
However, FPA chief executive Mark Rantall said that time limit is not “workable”.
He added that the proposal for advisers to sign up to a code of ethics without having to do so as part of a professional body could create a conflict.
“That would create an inherent unworkable conflict for planners as they would be required to follow the code at the same time as sanctioning themselves for any breaches,” Mr Rantall said.
“The FPA has data that proves financial planners who are not subject to a professional framework through membership of a professional body are 90 times more likely to be involved in ASIC banning and enforcement action.”
Meanwhile, the AFA said the draft legislation will only be open for public consultation until 4 January 2016, which is not long enough.
“We are concerned about the timeframe in which the government is seeking valuable feedback from the AFA and other key stakeholders and will express this concern to the government,” said AFA chief executive Brad Fox.
Both groups hope the independent body that will lay down the details for transitional arrangements by 2017 will recognise their qualification offerings as degree equivalents.
These include the AFA’s Fellow Chartered Financial Practitioner (FChFP) and the FPA’s Certified Financial Planner (CFP) titles.
“The meaning of ‘equivalent qualification’ also needs to be clarified to include professional qualifications such as the CFP designation,” Mr Rantall said.
“The FPA will be advocating for appropriate recognition of our members who have completed higher levels of training and qualifications than those required by the law.”
I couldn’t agree more with Kelly and Paul. Of course, I am sure the FPA won’t see it that way. Ironically, I recently completed a degree that I commenced when the FPA brought in the degree requirement for CFP as I wanted that designation. I’ve since changed my mind as I think the FPA takes far too many hypocritical positions when it comes to the question of education; protecting their grandfathered CFPs (and therefore, membership revenue) at all costs.
Why is the FPA lobbying for CFP to be recognised as a degree equivalent? CFP is a postgraduate level qualification, for which a degree is a prerequisite. To recognise CFP as degree equivalent would be downgrading it.
The only people who would benefit from this are the grandfathered CFPs who never had a degree in the first place. It looks like the FPA is continuing to damage and devalue the CFP designation, for the sake of the grandfathers.
I feel that if they are going to recognise the CFP designation they should only allow it for those that have completed the CFP course and not for those that were given the CFP designation without completing the study.