Amid calls for more recognition of industry specialisations within the FASEA education framework, one Coalition MP and former adviser has said it makes sense for all new entrants to the profession to start from a generalist base of knowledge.
At AIA’s recent Adviser Summit, Coalition MP Bert van Manen said while the FASEA regime’s implementation was driving an exodus of advisers, he did not agree with the idea of creating specialist pathways for different occupations such as stockbrokers or accountants in order to retain industry talent.
“We’ve got a lot of people who have been in the industry a long time who even without the regulatory stuff were probably considering retiring. I accept that it’s brought that forward and that will create pressures as we go through the transition,” Mr van Manen said.
“As we get new advisers coming in with better education and training pathways, ensuring they are brought up through that process of a broad base of experience and look to specialise down the track if that’s what they want to do, that will stand the industry in good stead.
“But it will take some time as we manage that process of transition.”
The comments come as the Stockbrokers and Financial Advisers Association called for greater professional recognition of its members within the FASEA framework this week, as it revealed up to 65 per cent of stockbrokers at major firms had failed the November exam sitting.
“FASEA has a view that financial planning is the only form of financial advice and they’ve treated it as the core education, when in fact financial planning is itself a specialisation,” SAFAA chief executive Judith Fox told ifa.
“So stockbrokers, investment advisers, accountants, risk advisers have all struggled because their specialisations aren’t recognised by FASEA.”
However, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy Jane Hume hit back at the association’s complaints, saying overall pass rates among stockbrokers since the exams began had been in line with the rest of the advice sector.
“There is plenty of opportunity to practise it. There’s plenty of opportunity to do training around it. And the best firms are doing that,” Ms Hume told Fairfax Media.
“I can’t understand firms that have put their head in the sand. It’s a denial of the reality of the industry they work in.”
Ms Hume added that as FASEA was still an independent body, she did not have the power to compel it to make changes to the exam.
Never miss the stories that impact the industry.
Comments (11)
Seriously though, if you don't know the answer, Jim's Mowing franchises are available.
Mr Van Mamen what new entrants? I wouldnt wish a life in financial planning on my worst enemy.
A different, "all-rounder" exam, can apply to new entrants.
All that is needed is to change the case studies to include more broadly based client scenarios. The questions will be the same however, the adviser reading it will feel more comfortable in answering it.
In the meantime, my suggestion for candidates is to change references to non familiar advice areas to the one that you work in. Eg; insurance changed to investment etc. Re-read it and look for the "problems"/issues and you should be able to make a good fist of the answer. The exam does not want specific technical answers around advice areas, it is all the other cogs in the planning process that is being tested, and that is universal.
A perfect example of moronic conflicting unreal world FARSEA v multiple other regulators.
Our Government and Canberra clowns just don’t live in the real world.
A sad joke is FARSEAcal.