According to Synchron chair Michael Harrison, advisers who work part-time and flexible hours will not be able to complete the required study within the timeframe FASEA is proposing and still maintain a high standard of service to clients.
“We recognise that financial advising is attractive to women who want to balance their work and family commitments, particularly those who want to run their own businesses and believe the proposed requirement will therefore have a disproportionately negative impact on female advisers,” Mr Harrison said.
Mr Harrison also added the requirements will also negatively impact on older advisers who have extensive experience and considerable skills but no formal university qualifications.
He also argued that although older advisers may want to work well into their later years and despite the government’s rhetoric around wanting people to work longer so that they are less of a burden on Australia’s welfare system, the reforms may force an estimated 5,000 plus advisers out of the industry.
“The FASEA proposals as they currently stand will force risk advisers in particular to study for a degree that is largely irrelevant to their day-to-day operations,” Mr Harrison said.
“Our concern is that these highly skilled and experienced advisers will find it very difficult to maintain these hours when, more likely than not, they will also be required to study for a degree.
“There will of course be a flow-on effect to support staff who will also lose their jobs. The exit of so many people from the industry will not only result in unemployment, it will increase the cost of advice, potentially making it prohibitive for many people to access.”
Mr Harrison criticised other FASEA proposals, including:
- Minimum and overly prescriptive standards of higher education
- Inadequate recognition of experience
- No differentiation between different disciplines – eg. risk only advisers
- An unrealistic and unfair implementation timeframe
“FASEA has taken 18 months to determine draft standards and yet has not commensurately extended the implementation timeframe. This is grossly unfair to both advisers and licensees,” he said.
It’s an absolute disgrace and insulting to advisors particularly older advisors who have always been there for clients. One comment made earlier ASIC cash cow couldn’t agree more
“The FASEA proposals as they currently stand will force risk advisers in particular to study for a degree that is largely irrelevant to their day-to-day operations,” Mr Harrison said.
SPOT on Michael! I’ve been screaming this to anyone who’ll listen for years. Why is Michael the only other onje who seems to think this way., Absolutely ridiculous risk advisers have to do this full qualification. What for? Like getting a GP to do brainsurgery quals or a lawyer to get a degree in electrical engineering or he can’t practioce law. STUPID! Michael bring a breath of fresh air but it is a shame so much vested self interest in legislators, pollies and industry bodies will triumph over client best interest and drive older valuable advisers out prematurely. Many untoward things going on here (believe it) but none align with client best interest. Also, education will NOT stop twisting which is what all this was about to begin with. Only the life company getting rid of bad advisers will but no chance of that since they’ve shown their true colours by siding with the 2 year clawback – no support for adviusers whatsoever on this. Ridiculous, untenable situation. Let risk advisers get on with things, get OUT of our way with irrelevant quals and let us look after our clients the way we have for the last 30 years.
Sounds to me like Michael has been hanging out with the AIOFP dinosaurs. Stop complaining and get on with it. For most of us it is no more than 4 subjects (bridging or uni) over 4 years to continue helping our clients and making a living. Get over it, get on with it or get out of our industry
You can complete those 4 subjects in 6 months while working fulltime (I did).
Thats assuming everyones spare time isnt just spent complaining as current.
I agree, I did the Masters degree while working full time as a single mother even ha ha in 18 months. I wish we could all just get on and get it done, the whinging is boring.
I think you are missing the point. Most of us are being asked to spend thousands of $ ($30k-$40k if we are talking about a Masters) and not learn anything we don’t already know. If these qualifications would actually make me more knowledgeable I’m all for it, but they won’t!
Lets hope that you are employed by one of the olders advisers who walk away due to the ridiculous new FASEA rules and are soon to be unemployed. Ha Ha to you too.
Miachel has very valid points . You are the one who needs a reality check
You clearly are an employee.
Where is Trump university when you need it?
When the FOFA regime was first thrust upon us advisers, the public were told as follows from Treasury as to what the objective of FOFA was.
“The objectives of FOFA are to improve the trust and confidence of Australian retail investors in the financial services sector and ensure the availability, accessibility and affordability of high quality financial advice. This is stated on the Treasury website and was so stated on 1 July 2013.”
Today, we ask, have they achieved their objective?
On Availability, it seems that product sales rather than advice is available with outcomes that were encouraged by banks, insurance companies and industry funds to terrible outcomes.
On Accessibility, it seems that with increased, over the top regulation, advisers cannot cope with more work and many can barely keep up with what they have with CPD and further education to deal with also. There appears NO COMMON SENSE approach, rather nonsense on a grand scale with duplication of processes on a number of fronts.
With less commission on risk and nonsense as a result from a compliance viewpoint other than that which is important from a best interest viewpoint, the industry has to deal with auditors that do not know this industry, have no experience from an advice point of view and instead of taking a common sense approach from a legal viewpoint, use this as an opportunity to destroy the lives of advisers for no real gain to the industry and to the detriment of the consumer. This is further increased in frustration by a regulator that seems conflicted with the financial institution heads as none will at this point, face prosecution of their blatant theft albeit via “performance bonuses”. Yet for advisers, there is simply no room as we are the low hanging fruit to be hung out to dry. So, a fail standard on this objective is the outcome.
As to affordability, the cost to the consumer for advice will rise from here to the point where for the majority of Australians, it will be out of reach.
When I reflect on this last statement, I cannot but help think that the real outcome is simply to dumb down the average punter. This started in 1988 with creation of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme HECS
I think this is the case simply because of what we as advisers do. telling people to maximize pensions, lower taxes ultimately effects the bottom line of Treasury. Perhaps, in a perverse way, an attack on our industry has this motive. The more ignorant consumers are, the more thieving that comes from a government that for the last 30 years has sought to hurt the very person they purport to represent. Their voter. A pox on both sides of the house as they simply govern for only one class of people. Their union mates and large corporates from banks to life offices to miners to retail chains.
It wasn’t that long ago, Australia went from the lucky country to being labelled the clever country. For the last 30 years, this is fast becoming the stupid country, run by a bunch of visionless and thoughtless individuals to really do not care.
With every breath, our industry needs to fight back, not merely for our survival but for the people we represent. Our clients. And we must do this in their best interest. After all, the fools in Cantberra have failed us all.
I could not agree with you more except it is not just the fools in Canberra that have failed us. We have in fact also been stitched up by both the corrupt FSC and ASIC over the LIF with their corruption only coming to light after the LIF was passed and by the AFA and FPA (paid for entities by the FSC). We are surrounded by corrupt people and I for one realise its time to get out. I am sure I’m not alone.
FASEA does disadvantage women and older advisers, also men, risk only advisers, advisers with vast experience, advisers who have spent money and countless hours studying and passing now useless qualifications, also the partners and children of advisers and of course the customers who will ultimately have to bear the cost. But everyone we must not forget that this will be advantageous for the ones pedaling the useless degrees and the banks who will end up with less competition.
I disagree. We have flexible online learning channels. Students can listen to my lectures and pod casts in their own time. Heck even if you live in regional Australia you can move to a city where there is good internet connect and just download my 2013 pod cast of Super changes. Mums can download my lectures and listen whilst breast feeding their babies at 2am in the morning.
If you think this argument will prevent people from buying my compulsory set text books and or ruining my Chances of having the Professer Cash Cow building named after myself… it’s not going to happen folks. Enrol in my courses now you lazy ignorant uneducated Financial Planners. As usual cha ching and goodbye.
Totally agree – my husband travels for work, frequently out of country and with two active teens I was able to complete my Masters degree via distance Ed with UWS whilst working a 4 day week. The royal commission has shown adviser have acted atrociously and yes the banks have been called out but there are plenty of unfortunate examples. If you are serious about being a professional and acting in the best interest of your client the first change has to be ethics but closely followed by education. All of the stalling and arguing that’s not fair is just distasteful People have lots bucket loads of money because of people in our industry behaving and acting poorly. It is time we started holding them and ourselves accountable.
Okay Jo – So, tell us all how a degree, a Masters, heck a damn PhD in Financial Planning if possible would answer the issue you are stating. The blatant disregard for the investing consumer.
The fact of life is, that none of what you are stating will do anything to resolve the issue. A JAIL cell however might change the minds of these nitwits.
Lets start with the CEO’s, move to Ministers, then to the rest as you please. Theft is theft after all, Even it is those ” performance bonuses “. Lets also attack Corporations Law and the SIS Act for encouraging theft on a grand scale. Lets move to the Income Tax Assessment Act after that. Root and branch here please.
The mess you are about to see in 2019 and beyond, goes well beyond education. It is the manipulation of people.
Government of both persuasions have done this over the last 30 years.
Education is NOT going to answer this problem Jo.If you think otherwise, think again.
I would suggest you wake up from your slumber, come down from the cross and hang with us regular folk. As both a law partner,a tax accountant and planner for over 30 years in practice, you are indeed mis-informed.
Well said.
Education will improve our indiustry, which has issues way beyond the banks and AMP. How? The old school, not willing to upskill and improve will leave, and those of us that understand BID and our obligations will stay. Despite being experienced and continuously learning (as predomiantly a risk specialist), I am more than happy to become more educated so that our industry becomes a profession that puts our client’s first.
Actually, the RC showed AN adviser acting atrociously. The repeatedly atrocious behaviour you mention came courtesy of the banking oligopoly. Perhaps Commissioner Hayne will turn his head to this predictable effect of an industry with virtually no competition. That said, nothing so far suggests he understands the basic economics involved here.
How do you change ethics? You either have it or you don’t. Can’t be taught via education.
You are an idiot Jo. If you had any idea what was going on you would know that Professor Cash Cow is taking about Professor Brimble who has his own text books as required reading for his financial planning course you dill. You must have still been studying when all this was going on 12 months ago. Hopefully you have more compassion for the odd client you have than the thousands of affected long term advisers. I doubt it though.
Where the %$@$ has this guy been??? Five minutes to midnight he comes out and makes a statement. Only about 12-18 months too late. Extremely inappropriate from a head of a Large Dealer group to be making statements like this when the ink is practically drying on the legislation. The legislation has been written by FASEA people, it’s about to be presented to the Minister. This will not be, and does not need to be debated by Parliament.
Leadership is not raising issues after the event. The timing of this press release indicates a lot about this persons understanding of FASEA. I would be very disappointed if I were a Syncron Adviser.
If you were a Synchron adviser (or almost any other adviser) you’d know that the heads of the Synchron licence are very vocal proponents of our industry. This is not the first time they have spoken out on behalf of advisers, nor will it be the last. I’d be very disappointed being caught out making claims about how I believe others should feel.
Well said, Anon.
Synchron one of the FEW people in this industry standing up for advisers for a LONG time!
Yes but, on this occasion standing up… after the horse has bolted.
If they’re only working part-time they have more than enough time to complete the required education in the timeframe. If a woman working full-time with 2 children can do it why can’t these people? And Michale stop playing the trendy gender card, its getting tired.
why be sexist stating that women are unfairly treated. I am a male with a young family. Why am I not considered disadvantaged when I will have less time with my family and no work/life balance.
Because the males aren’t as politically correct when it comes to disadvantages….
and can I say us women have not asked for these men to come in and stick up for us, I think they’re just finding any excuse and have used us and older advisers….
Unintended consequences abound !!!
Academic’s running the show keeping themselves in a job, no idea what happens in practice. Again client best interests lost in the maze. You will never stop the cowboys you are driven by the almighty dollar.
Agree – and what about those advisers who specialise in Insurance only? The proposed education requirements do not recognise them either.
I’m a single Mum with 2 children, working full time and running a business and still managed to recently completed my Master of Financial Planning so it’s doable. While it’s hard to fit the study in, like anything if you put your mind to it, anything is possible!!!!
Wow. You are supermum!!!
I don’t think clients want a professional adviser to work 1 or 2 days per week. Male or Female. Like lawyers & accountants, it’s a vocation. Once again Synchron continues to advocate for part-time golf playing advisers. Drawing the gender thing into this is a self-serving and irrelevant argument.
I need a job there, my game is off due to lack of time.
My clients absolutely see me as professional and admire my ability to work 3 days p/wk in my 40s, maintaining a work/life balance with my family. I also know several lawyers and accountants who work part time, so perhaps you need to broaden your thinking and step into the modern flexible workplace world.
Well said, Karen
Karen stop it. You are making way too much sense.
How many more people of long standing experience and genuine integrity have to state the obvious before regulators and government stop consulting instos and people who have never given individual advice.
Spot on comments Michael.
Its not about a divergence in the long term outcome everyone wants.
Its about being commercial and reasonable about how to get there.
Please keep up the fight.
Very well stated Michael.
Have the new FASEA requirements been legislated, considering where Parliament is up to?
The legislation was the time frames and establishment of FASEA. FASEA get to set what they want – no need for new legislation.