FASEA gives CFP program 2 credits

Financial advisers will have the opportunity to gain a clearer picture of the status of their degrees as a result of the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) today releasing additional information from higher education providers on their historical degrees as well as the Financial Planning Association’s Certified Financial Planner (CFP) program.

The CFP program has been assessed at two credits in the FASEA education standard.

The FASEA released its Relevant Providers Degrees, Qualifications and Courses Standard Legislative Instrument which it said updated with additional information from higher education providers on their historical degrees as well as extending the range of approved historical programs.

It said the instrument also included the first approved recognition of prior learning for education undertaken to attain a professional designation.

The FASEA announcement said the FPA’s five-unit Certified Financial Planner (CFP) program (commencing Semester 2, 2003) had been assessed pursuant to FASEA’s program and provider accreditation policy and as a result Financial Advisers/Planners who had completed the program would receive two credits for the appropriate existing adviser pathways set out in FASEA’s Education Standard.

It said FASERA had also worked with higher education providers to enhance information on historical degrees, with industry associations to review potential recognition of learning opportunity following on from queries and information received from the industry.

Recommended for you




Excellent news for CFP program completed from 2003, guess that means my CFP (UniWestSyd) completed in 2001 is still worthless...

what is going to happen with the grandfathered e.g fake CFP designations from back in the day? With the new laws if would seem that it would be illegal to call oneself a certified planner if they don't have degree etc. Did the FPA contact you?

if the FPA were smart, and it really points to ethics considering the new education requirements for Planners, is to revoke those 'grandfathered' ie fake CFP designations given to folks back in the early 2000s. Any thoughts?

Education providers change their course material all the time. The CFP in my mind is not different. If someone received the CFP (grandfathered) then in my mind I am happy for them to retain the same standing as someone who completed the new CFP as late as last year. If someone has an objection to this, can you please tell my how your HSC done many years ago has any reflection on today's HSC? simply put, you do the qualification AT THE TIME and that should be that. No profession would survive what we are being asked to do.

Ha! So a grandfathered (handed out just for being present on the day) CFP is equivalent to a 4-subject CFP?

Steven, you seem to be a little obsessed with mine is better than yours but really, what does it matter? It was the best at the time so move on.

Because those grandfathered were given it for 'experience' and being a FPA member rather than actually completing quite difficult study. Chalk and Cheese.

Anyone that has actually studied the CFP should be given credit, those who were gifted it shouldnt get a thing.

This is the chicken and the egg argument - what is your point. Those who were given with experience actually had experience. Those doing it now do not need much experience at all to obtain the CFP. You saying your pathway makes you better or the only way? Which is it?

Because several of the 'grandfathered' CFPs I know are some of the worst advisers I know. Lets get real, the industry 20-30 years ago was more pure sales and not advice. Pre-FOFA the industry was a bit of a circus (parts still are) but we all know that. Don't really value that experience too much.

Really, your wrong. I got the fake CFP in 2000 after completing the DIploma 1-4 through Deakin and joined FPA. I had barely any experience. It was really an award for being a member of the FPA. Your argument makes no logical sense. It was not an ‘award’ eg a degree, it was a designation back then. It wasn’t given to all DFP graduates with experience, only those that joined the FPA. your HSC argument is incoherent.

Thanks Bear but since 2000, I hope you have learnt a thing or two in the last 18 years or so - maybe even enough to be a good Financial Planner or maybe not.

We have strayed from the topic. The debate was on the value of the CFP designation. That is the qualification. Experience is not the issue. In some ways, perhaps the FPA devalued their own CFP education course, because of those that had it without the commensurate education.

This is a fair outcome. Have a think just WHY you only got 2 credits. It's because the FPA is not a professional body it's just a collective funded by parties (also members) hauled before a Royal Commission and proven to have a breached the Corporations law.

Red tape, compliance Government intervention will not change unless we have real leadership in this industry. The current FPA management are not the leaders we deserve. CFP holders need to write to the CFP standards boards overseas and request the CFP designation distribution rights be striped from the FPA.

I agree that the FPA is both rudderless , but not convinced that this is a fair outcome considering the work that goes into the 5 CFP modules. Anyway, we move on, let's hope the Industry soon gets the representation and leadership that we deserve.

Great to see that my hard-earned CFP is now acknowledged as being worth as much as an ADFP and "one quarter" of a Graduate Diploma. What an insult- so much for the "Global Benchmark" in Financial Planning......

Bear, you are an idiot

@ bear,
Your ignorance is on display.
Many who obtained CFP certification prior to the end of 2003 did so, through the FPA via Deakin University.'
The pass mark to complete the DFP 8 assignment was set at a minimum of 75.0%.
Fail that, and you fail the whole subject.
No doubt you were one of those 50 percenter's who have since pass a degree course that makes you think you have obtained superior status.
Before you start knocking others, get your facts right.
Having 1 degree or several, doesn't make you smarter or better than another adviser, it doesn't assume you are honest, it doesn't prove you have integrity and it certainly goes guarantee that you will put the clients best interests ahead of your own.
It's just another sanctimonious judgement call.

Your arguement is moot right there: Pre-2003 is "DFP8". You cannot argue a Diploma of Financial Planning is eqivalent to a Bachelor's Degree, Post-Graduate or Masters.

The FPA have been pushing their own agenda with their 'masters equivalent' for post-2003 CFP designation. No one in the education space (outside of the FPA) acknowledged that this designation was AQF level 8.

Yeah, umm, no - the pre 2003 CFP program was a 4 unit program (through University of Western Sydney) on top of any DFP, Grad.DFP etc. and it was a full semester unit x 4, and it wasn't cheap at $1,450 per unit. To have FASEA come out and exclude this without any credits is a joke, but well done if you were 'fortunate' to be younger than myself and commenced the CFP program post 2002.

Sorry Davey, I'm not arguing the fact you had to complete 4 courses, but the fact of the matter is some planners were grandfathered into the designation when it was first introduced because of their experience (simply for FPA to boost numbers of the designation).

As others have said, FASEA have made their call let's move on, we need to band together and start to call ourselves a profession.... while we are at it, let's have proper (and appropriately aligned) representation.

thanks for your comments. You seem very emotional about this. You say, 'get your facts straight' then go on about talk about degrees don't mean integrity and honesty etc. I totally agree, there a many sh&t professionals with many degrees in all industries. I didnt say anything about integrity of advisers - only the legality and ethics of the FPA. Some people got the CFP designation with exp + DFP 1-4. Dont remember 1-8 being around then.
I didnt say I support the new education requirements either, I merely said you shouldnt get credits for CFP, if you didnt actually do the CFP coursework, because that isnt fair to other who did do it.
My opinion is that, the DFP 1-4 isn't enough to be a Planner though.
50%?...I have two degrees., must put in somewhere in the 95% percentile :)

What does this say then about the International status of a CFP - basically it says the global profession is all but back to square 1 and/or the Global profession needs to get specific degree education by 2024 - but all said and done, the CFP is a lame duck but served some purpose for 15 odd years.

CFP is only a lame duck in Australia. In other countries the work of Advisers is highly valued by consumers. Government intervention is less. The FPA just needs it's right to use the CFP brand in Australia taken off them. They've been dragged before a Royal Commission and found incapable of being a code monitoring body and now their coursework is worth only 2 credits. In any other business heads would role, the CEO would stand down. In Australia planners just say we don't care. I say this is what you get when you don't care. Sucked in if you're in this space and a FPA member.

It says nothing about it overseas. It is well regarded in my experience. If someone new asked you whether they should complete it, you would have say no though, unless you expect to work outside of Australia, under the new regime, which seems enormously conflicted.

I can honestly say 'the writing was on the wall' for that one.. The FPA entire agenda was pushing their whole 'CFP is the pinnacle of financial planning' - according to yourself. I will not be coerced into your false 'masters degree' equivalent. Your underlying financials illustrate a significant income is generated through the CFP designation and CFP course.

Having completed a wide variety of university courses in addition to the CFP Certification course, I can attest that the CFP academic standard is just as high if not higher.

Issues of grandfathered CFP Designation (which is completely different to the post 2003 CFP Certification course) and FPA membership by product providers (which ceased in 2011) are irrelevant. The only criterion of relevance is the academic standard of the CFP Certification course.

It appears that the reason FASEA has refused to allow any more then 2 credits is to try and force more people to pay for more courses aligned with FASEA Board members. They should be investigated for corruption.

Dear Bear, don't blame grandfathered CFP's. It was the CFP coursework that was given 2 credits. Those original CFP's had a vision of coming together to form a profession to prevent over regulation. In order to join we were given a carrot. Just what have new FPA members done for the profession. They've done nothing really, just happy to sit back and get payments from product providers and somehow they think this will reduce Government Intervention. If only those same visionaries that helped start the FPA were around today we wouldn't be where we are now.

Time to be unlicensed and give general advice like a financial coach or, get a job and provide conflicted intra fund advice with no consumer protection. I'm so over education - why should I do this all again when others never have

I'm beginning to wonder which way is up with all this stuff. Post 2003 CFP, Pre 2003 CFP. Throw on top of that the involvement of Education providers, the Tax Practitioners Board and the FASEA Code of Ethics. It's remains a complete 'dogs breakfast' with the clock ticking for those who intend to remain in the industry. Might be time to push the implementation time frame back ?

FASEA gives CFP studies two Credits....I give the FPA two thumbs down. Epic fail. Pretty much the CFP course is dead and all over red rover. Given they get at least 1/3 of revenue from the CFP course could the last FPA member please close the door and turn off the lights. It will be good to the see the back of this self centered organization. Time for a new association that will put the needs of Advisers and Australians first. Let's make Financial Planning great again. Let's get a new body up and going ASAP.

Add new comment