Recently, the Advisers Association chief executive Neil Macdonald wrote in an opinion column that the industry will see a “mass exodus of financial advisers that will make the current stream of exits look like a trickle in percentage terms”.
Speaking to sister brand ifa, the executive director of the Association of Independently Owned Financial Professionals (AIOFP) echoed Mr Macdonald’s comments.
“We have always maintained that FASEA is a weapon used against advisers by this government to intimidate them out of the industry,” he said.
“Where else in the world do you need to pass an exam before you finish a degree? How can you not seriously recognise previous relevant degrees and experience?”
Mr Macdonald’s column received overwhelming feedback, with many comments coming from advisers who agreed saying they would be exiting the industry by January 2026.
“We are lobbying for any adviser with 15 years’ experience and a clean record does not need a degree and any risk adviser with less than 15 years’ experience only completes a risk content relevant degree,” Mr Johnson said.
“We must stop the exodus of advisers out of the industry.
“This government has been brutally uncompromising in the past but it will be different over the next few months, their jobs are now on the line. If they don’t listen they may be on the dole by the end of May.”
The Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) also supported calls for changes to the education requirements. In a statement given to ifa, AFA said it is “particularly concerned about the number of existing advisers who have passed the exam, however might decide that meeting the education standard is impossible to justify”.
“For some advisers with a relevant degree and further credits for the ADFP (or equivalent) or a professional designation, it will be achievable, however for those older advisers faced with the completion of an eight subject Graduate Diploma, it will be overwhelming,” the statement reads.
The AFA renewed its call for the FASEA education standard to address what was set out in the explanatory memorandum to the 2017 Professional Standards Bill, which includes: “For the avoidance of doubt, the new law explicitly states that courses undertaken before the new law commences must be taken into consideration. The body may take into account diploma or degree courses, licensee training courses or CPD.”
“We understand that the Government will never agree to the removal of any requirement for further education, and they will argue that the extended period of time to complete the study is a concession,” AFA’s statement continued.
“We nonetheless believe that what is required should be more achievable, particularly for those who are closer to the end of their career.”
The AFA suggested to ifa that if advisers are tasked with doing four or five subject credits as opposed to eight, more will be prepared to “have a go at it” and remain in the industry.
Sat exam, passed first time. When I jointed this industry did the full DFP with Deakin Uni, specialist courses, SMSF specialist, estate planning, working with accountants and lawyers, and now would have to do further graduate diploma units. That doesn’t make you a better adviser and furthermore, PI insurance will limit what you can do severely. Agree with having had 15 years of experience under the belt, not a “mickey mouse” RG146 accreditation, then the new “professional” competency requirements are a farce. It’s not about ethics, it’s about making more money and the political establishment hiding behind their incompetence. ASIC and APRA have a long history reacting when the horses already bolted. Too far removed from the reality. By the way, the worst crooks are the ones with the highest “education”. No wonder on federal level ICAC is gaining ground. Too much to hide. Again, it’s not the exam … it’s the sneaky way to work in hand with lobbyists to make more money and hiding behind incompetency.
It is amazing that so many advisers resent having to demonstrate their competencies and their understanding of appropriate ethics in an exam format. If those working in the industry already have those competencies and ethics, as I would hope, an exam would not be an issue and many advisers would not feel so threatened.