As with everything else, the exam was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic which meant the introduction of remote proctoring.
And finally, Santa Claus arrived early for many advisers as the Government announced FASEA would be rolled into Treasury and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
The ending of FASEA did little to change education requirements, but given how difficult FASEA had been to work with and the anxiety in the industry, there was optimism it might help usher in other changes to make the education requirements more workable to retain more advisers.
By its end, FASEA was virtually universally despised, but although there was support for increased standards in the industry, which included support for an education standard, how did it go so wrong?
Print
The Financial Planning Association (FPA) has hit out at the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) for failing to align the rules for tax financial advisers with the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) regime while failing to define what actually represents tax financial advice that falls outside the definition of financial advice.
In a strongly worded submission to the TPB the FPA said it was extremely disappointed “by the TPB’s reluctance to unconditionally accept the [Continuing Professional Education] CPE 1 completed for FASEA purposes as meeting the TPB CPE requirements for tax (financial) advisers (TFAs).
“The FPA notes that the TPB have mirrored many of the FASEA requirements in the proposed amendments to its CPE policy. However, as these proposals do not replicate in whole the higher FASEA requirements without conditions, it creates two mis-matched systems that will lead to confusion and more red tape for tax (financial) advisers,” the FPA said.
Five planning and accounting groups have united to press the Government to override the Australian Securities and Investments Commission on its proposed levy increases citing the mass exodus of advisers from the industry.
However, when contacted by
Money Management, ASIC confirmed it most regularly pursued people on the basis of them either not holding an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL) or being authorised to operate under such a license.
The question of the restricted use of the term “financial adviser/planner” has come to the fore because of the controversy surrounding alleged fraudster, Melissa Caddick, who was passing herself off as a financial adviser without holding an AFSL or an authority.
It also came as veteran Sydney-based financial adviser, Ian MacRitchie, noted that he had been concerned by what he regarded as ASIC’s apparent inaction when sought to help a family friend who had been burned by an unlicensed financial adviser.
“I have worked very hard to get to this point and am honoured to win this prestigious award,” Manias said.
“One of my primary motivations for becoming a CFP was a desire to achieve the highest designation in the profession.
“I don’t take shortcuts and have always strived to obtain the best qualifications in the field.”
Manias completed a Masters of Financial Planning at Kaplan Professional before choosing to become a CFP professional.
“Working through realistic case studies in depth and completing statements of advice was the highlight of the program,” Manias said.
“The knowledge I’ve gained from the program will be hugely beneficial to me and my clients.”