In a presentation at the SMSF Association National Conference, Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority chief executive Deen Sanders said licensed accountants were an important part of the conversation with the new standards for advisers and said that ASIC may need to provide some clarification.
“In a simple sense, this act responds to what is identified as relevant providers, so that’s distinguishing the way that advisers work. The Corporations Act in its original form mentioned different types of things like limited advice but this act doesn’t distinguish – anybody giving personal financial advice on financial products is a relevant provider, doesn’t matter whether you’re under a limited or full licence,” said Mr Sanders.
“This is an immediate, current understanding – this will evolve as we get closer to implementation and ASIC will obviously be the authority responsible for identifying how that works, but importantly from our perspective, we consider this to be advice for everyone who fits into the definition of relevant provider.”
While Mr Sanders acknowledged that currently there was not a lot of information provided on what would be considered a degree equivalent, he informed delegates that FASEA would be releasing further information on this in current weeks.
“It won’t be a surprise from the legislation that the important words therein are degree equivalents, not certificate equivalents. This implies quite correctly as the law states that this is an assessment of education. We will also provide you with an idea of bridging courses and other solutions. I can give you comfort that all of those things are part of that consideration,” he said.
Doesn’t matter what the position of the industry bodies is, law is law. I’m a Financial Planner needing to complete another degree because an Accounting degree and a Master of Commerce is apparently not sufficient. Get studying people.
and what is the position of the the accounting bodies in all this?????? Do we hear a deafening silence – again?
This is shambolic and will throw the profession into disarray and, ultimately just make some education providers more profitable.
From what is there at present, here needs to be:
1. Recognition of significant experience that, after a period of time more than overshadows a degree.
If, there is nervousness about the education qualifications of practitioners with greater than, say 10 years, have a initial capability test for them to complete. In other words, just bring forward one of the regular, ongoing tests that will be a part of the new regime. It is an absolute nonsense that a practitioner that has been successful for a period of time potentially needs to undergo a degree course.
2. In the high net wealth space, as opposed to the retail space where much of this is targeting, specialisation needs to be a feature. The industry/profession will be better off if there is room for specialisation whereby, f or example,an investment specialist is partnered with a strategic planner to build and manage the client’s affairs. Under this structure, the investment specialist should not have to be fully qualified in strategy development etc and, vice versa. The current regime does not countenance this potentiality and presents a major threat to many practitioners operating structures.
3. The retail client is always the focus of these types of grand plans and as a result, a one, lowest common denominator approach, is adopted. It needs to be more nuanced. Accountants, for one, will find out that their degree and CPA/CA and even masters will not be enough if there are no financial planning units included. To suggest that these practitioners need to go back to do a full degree is beyond the pale.
4. The higher level of educational standards should be a future state objective and transition arrangements put in place for experienced practitioners.