The Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) released a legislative instrument for consultation which covers, in detail, what further education existing advisers will need to complete to comply with the incoming education standards. The new standards are effective from 2024, and cover accountants and advisers operating under an AFSL.
You can access this latest guidance, and assess your situation, in full here.
Essentially, the guidance released yesterday reiterates a model FASEA has been working towards: if you operate under an AFSL and don’t have a financial planning degree – which is the vast majority of the industry – further study will be required by 2024.
In effect, this means those providing even basic financial advice – like SMSF set-ups under a limited AFSL – would need to do three or so bridging courses at a tertiary level to remain compliant.
As it stands, accountants operating under a limited licence will be required to complete education over the next six years which their licence conditions don’t allow them to use in practice.
“It’s a terribly bureaucratic model. It seems to support study for study’s sake,” said head of policy and corporate affairs at CPA Australia Paul Drum.
“It’s basically sending everyone back to school. Nobody will be removed from further study,” said Mr Drum.
In better news, it’s clearer now for the advice community what legwork they’ll need to do to comply with the new standards, said Greg Hayes, director at Hayes Knight.
“It’s unrealistic at this point for every single person to have absolute clarity, but the greater number of people should be able to sit down and assess their position,” Mr Hayes said.
katarina.taurian@momentummedia.com.au
Oh my goodness I can’t wait to learn things I can’t advise on as an accountant with a limited licence, after all as a working mum I have so much spare time I can’t wait to fill it up with useless information that I will also have the privilege to pay for. Thankyou FASEA, you are making the world a better place
Whatever version of FASEA passes, it MUST apply to All involved, including the FASEA CEO’s, Executives & Managers. Given every part of the Financial System has had issues and let the system down, especially the Institutional CEO’s, Executives & Managers and Government bodies, these people must be made to jump through the same hoops as the lowly Financial Advisers.
It is disgusting and always the case that ALL the problems and ALL the extra regulation get pushed down to the Financial Advisers (Includes Limited AFSL Accountants), whilst the top end of town and the government get away with zero extra regulation, compliance or education.
FASEA for ALL involved !!!!!!
FASEA for ALL involved in any part of Financial Services !!!!!
– ASIC, APRA, ATO, etc CEO’s, Executives & Managers making these rules must have passed them.
– All Politicians must do FASEA, especially the ETHICS.
– All Bank CEO’s, Executives & Managers must do FASEA.
– All Life Insurance Co. CEO’s, Executives & Managers must do FASEA.
– All Super Fund Trustees, CEO’s, Executives & Managers must do FASEA.
– All Financial Associations, FPA, FSC, AFA, SMSFA, etc CEO’s, Executives & Managers must do FASEA.
– And let’s not forget the FASEA CEO’s, Executives & Managers must do FASEA, surely these people need to have passed the qualifications to be forcing them on Advisers.
If FASEA do not address the rest of the industry, especially the top people involved & the government bodies, it is a complete joke.
FASEA is right to increase education entry beyond RG 146 = DFP 1-4 but to be so arrogant and so dismissive of existing advisers with very strong education and experience is disgusting.
Just more over regulation of existing advisers to try to combat the Banks, Insurance Companies & Industry Funds highly conflicted VERTICAL INTEGRATION models. It won’t fix Vertical Integration conflicts, no regulation has or will.
Seconded. It’s a knee jerk reaction to a problem that is still being identified. Doing something now instead of doing something that might actually make a difference. Education won’t trump incentive.
The fundamental problem is the inclusion of “superannuation interests” as defined in section 10(1) of SISA as a deemed financial product hence bringing SMSFs into the Corporations Act 2001. From all I have read from FASEA, the core educational standards are focused on “financial products” rather than deemed financial products. I expect that the standards for SMSF advice will reflect that, as core financial planning subjects where no personal investment advice is provided in an SMSF are superfluous. Let’s hope that the money we pay for SMSF Association and Accounting body membership fees are put to good use to get FASEA and the government to carve out separate standards for SMSF advice. Much the same as the current competency standards.
Knee jerk reactionary legislation caused FASEA to do this. Blame Kelly O’Dwyer and the lobbyists as well as the failed-to-lobby industry associations. I agree the approach is backward, David. ID the problem (real) then consider possible solutions followed by best solutions for implementation. In other words Best Interest Duty!
When will smsf administrators be also held to account like the rest of the industry either already is or will soon be? Establishing and winding-up SMSFs by placing a form on a website and saying it’s client directed/execution only isn’t an exemption that’s been highlighted anywhere. How can accountants and FPs require a license and other firms doing exact same work and advising clients what to do as part of the process not? Can anyone please explain this?
FASEA seems to have the opinion that it is a lack of education that has led to problems in the superannuation sector. However, the royal commission looked into superannuation and found that problems were created by commissions and conflicted advice. Why then are FASEA so determined to address education standards rather than commission based products? Perhaps FASEA should wait for the outcome of the royal commission, to identify the actual problems that exist, before they attempt to legislate a solution.