-
Get the latest news! Subscribe to the ifa bulletin
Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Get the latest news! Subscribe to the ifa bulletin
The FASEA board “rushed out” its initial guidance and will be open to making changes following the consultation period, including potentially abolishing the '10-year rule', says a financial planning academic.
Speaking to ifa, Deakin University associate professor Adrian Raftery – who is not a FASEA board member but is co-chair of the Financial Planning Academics Forum – said he expects his peers on the board to be taking the consultation process seriously.
“I’m very confident there will be changes,” Dr Raftery said. “I’d be very surprised if what we saw in December was still in place post-consultation.”
The academic said he suspects the board “rushed out” the guidance before Christmas in response to critics in the media and financial services industry and was planning to use the consultation process to further develop its long-term position.
“If they had their time again, they might have taken their time, had a few more people look at it,” Dr Raftery said.
In particular, Dr Raftery expects FASEA’s so-called 10-year rule – which specifies that degrees not completed within the last decade will not be recognised and has been a major source of distress for many existing advisers – to be abolished post-consultation.
“[The] 10-year rule is going to be a huge impost,” he said, adding that it remains unclear the date at which the 10 years is measured from and that it was likely not an intentional inclusion.
“My belief is that where it came from is that universities across the board have an acknowledgement that 10 years is usually the cut off used for credits for prior learning. It is a commonly used [standard] in education [and was] inadvertently placed in this guidance. I think it’s one of the first things that would go.”
Dr Raftery refuted the suggestion that the 10-year rule may have been more deliberate and hit back at claims the FASEA board is plagued by conflicts of interest.
“I strongly disagree that the ‘conflicts of interest’ argument is valid,” he said. “There might be a perceived conflict, but not actual.”
In addition, Dr Raftery praised the appointment of FASEA CEO Deen Sanders – likening it to the recruitment of AFL legend Kevin Sheedy to coach the GWS Giants – and said that FASEA board member Mark Brimble is also a smart choice for the board.
“The way I know the FASEA board, they couldn’t do a better job in terms of handling conflicts of interest,” he said. “You couldn’t ask for more transparent. I would say their persoanlities would be quiet open to listening to recommendations.”
Dr Raftery encouraged advisers to make a submission to the consultation process.
Industry frustration over a lack of consultation and communication from the board is warranted but ultimately due to lack of resources, he said.
“[FASEA] is not much more than a one man band,” Dr Raftery said. “If [Mr Sanders] had a hundred staff there would be much more activity.”
He anticipated that FASEA would be making more announcements in coming weeks.
Never miss the stories that impact the industry.
Get the latest news! Subscribe to the ifa bulletin
Comments (59)
poor bugger his degree is from 2002 - (newer than mine )- under the current regime the FASEA requires him to do a bridging course - just not up to scratch. - What a bloody joke the FASEA board are
To scrap degree qualifications by a 10 year rule is a ridiculous proposition and what a precedent it would be for professions such as doctors, engineers etc all of whom deal with much weightier issues than completing a SOA.
And don't try and tell us the FASEA Board will be doing advisers a favour by changing their position on this. Their original proposition is just untenable. You guys will have a massive fight on your hands with this issue I guarantee it. Advisers have copped everything including the kitchen sink over the last decade but this is the last straw.
And no thanks to the AFA and FPA in all of this. You guys have just signed your own redundancy cheques.
And therefore, through Mr Raftrey I would like to remind them that they are in public appointments, meaning the Commonwealth Government's Conflict of Interest policies apply.
Here is how the policy starts:
5.1.1 The public is entitled to have confidence in the integrity of their public officials, and to know that an Australian Public Service (APS) employee's personal interests do not conflict with his or her public duties.
5.1.2 The APS Code of Conduct (the Code) requires employees to take reasonable steps to avoid any conflict of interest, real or apparent, in connection with their employment.
Question: What reasonable steps has the board taken to avoid the "perceived" or apparent conflict of interest?
I encourage you all to question them next time you bump into them during their course promotion road-shows next time you attend an industry event.
www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/c...conflict-of-interest
The '10 year rule' is an ambit claim straight out of Negotiation 101.
But what of the morality of FASEAS to rush out a swag of edicts and cause pandemonium amongst existing Advisers just prior to Christmas such that they were unnecessarily distressed. Some no doubt rushed off and enrolled in courses having been advised that they only had 6 years ie until 2024 until they needed to have their degree (which would take 6 years part-time. No one seemed bothered enough to factor in that some advisers would fail some subjects such that the average time to complete the requisite degree would be more than 6 years. What then!
To rush out a half-baked plan as FASEAS did was unethical and unconscionable.
To say that “If they had their time again, they might have taken their time, had a few more people look at it,” Dr Raftery said.
In particular, Dr Raftery expects FASEA’s so-called '10-year rule' – which specifies that degrees not completed within the last decade will not be recognised and has been a major source of distress for many existing advisers – to be abolished post-consultation.
FASEAS is simply using Raftery to guage Adviser and Association sentiment at the potential relaxation of the '10 year rule' ala Negotiation 101 again.
This means that FASEAS seeing the reaction Raftery's 'conjecture' does not need to relax the '10 year rule' unless they think it will make the passage of all their other edicts much easier.
I haven’t yet seen either the AFA or FPA suggest to existing Advisers that they might consider delaying any rush to enrol in ‘new and approved’ Financial Planning degrees until the FASEAS deliberations are closer to completion.
Why does that not surprise me.