FASEA on Tuesday released exam results from the 13th Financial Advisers Exam held in July 2021, revealing that only 60 per cent of all candidates passed the exam.
“FASEA congratulates successful candidates on completing an important component of their education requirements under the Corporations Act,” said FASEA chief executive officer Stephen Glenfield.
“In recognition of their achievement, passing candidates who give consent, will have their names added to the successful candidates list on the FASEA website,” the CEO said.
Candidates who were unsuccessful in this exam will receive additional individual feedback to highlight the curriculum areas where they have underperformed. They will also receive an invitation to a FASEA led webinar to help them understand their results and provide guidance on how to prepare for their next sitting.
Overall, 16,030 advisers have passed the exams held to date out of a total 18,140 candidates that have sat the exams.
Of those that have passed, 14,070 are recorded as active financial advisers on ASIC FAR, representing 73 per cent of active advisers on ASIC’s Financial Adviser Register (FAR). Some 1,650 are ceased advisers on the FAR and may be re-authorised, while 310 are new entrants and may be authorised as a Provisional Financial Adviser.
FASEA also revealed that to date, 1,932 unsuccessful candidates have re-sat the exam with 65 per cent passing at a re-sit.
Moreover, it noted that further analysis of the July exam data has highlighted areas for improvement, particularly amongst unsuccessful candidates.
Exam question areas advisers underperformed on the July exam included:
Financial advice regulatory and legal obligations
- Demonstrating knowledge of when practitioners are required by law to provide a retail client with key documentation e.g. FSG/SOA etc
- Demonstrating knowledge of the components of key advice documentation that is provided to the client
- Evaluating case studies and identifying breaches of financial disclosure obligations
- Applying relevant sections of the Corporations Act when identifying responsible provider obligations, including breaches of those obligations
- Applying Tax Agents Services Act 2009 requirements to scenarios and identifying compliance and non-compliance.
Applied ethical and professional reasoning and communication
- Demonstrating an understanding of the relationship of FASEA code to professionalism of entire industry.
- Applying best interests duty and associated obligations to clients in scenario based problems.
- Identifying sources of judgement and biases and their influence on financial advice
Financial advice construction
- Demonstrating an understanding of the context in which financial advice is given and requested and how this impacts decision making.
- Identifying inappropriate advice and how to comply with the Code of Ethics
FASEA’s next exam is coming up in September, with 1700 advisers said to have registered.
Class action lawsuit surely to come for FASEA, private company hired to run this, they are not government, looking at the resumes of the “experts” running it, show they flip flopped around FP jobs and barely have any client facing experience. Where do all the profits go for this exam btw? Who’s pocket does it go into? If anyone knows this, it would be good to know.
The revenue goes to the Commonwealth. Where did you think it went?
FASEA is a standards body under the Corporations Act 2001.
Its employees are public servants.
Just when I think people couldn’t be more simple then this gets posted and we’re at a whole other level.
Go sue the Commonwealth champion!
Sorry mate, he is actually right, look it up, FASEA is a private company and they are not public servants, as they work for a private company.
Nope. See the Australian Government Directory for FASEA Ltd.
It has a registered ABN and ACN. Public servants are employed directly by state and federal governments.
ASIC, ATO and the ABS also each have an ABN (as recorded on the Australian Government Directory). Perhaps they are each a “private company” as well?
Funny to see so many people claiming years of experience should negate the need for them to be formally qualified. I wonder how many of them would see a a surgeon with years of experience but not a qualified surgeon?
It would not be unreasonable to have a 3 strikes rule. I passed first time but will not be staying in the profession, too much red tape and not enough profit.
Quick quiz. What is the maximum number of attempts an adviser could have had to pass the FASEA exam by 1 Jan 2022?
I reckon it’s 8.
Which is a joke. Max of 3 strikes & you’re out
Even allowing for COVID disruptions, regulatory issues, market fluctuations, family issues, and the dog eating your FASEA Code….8 potential attempts over two and a half years is more than enough opportunity.
Isn’t it at least $500 for each attempt? Nice for the paid-for-on-payday academics that are the only ones to benefit!
I passed but will not be completing my study, so in 4 years and 3 months today I will no longer be an adviser. 25 years of experience and age 62 who would waste 4 years of their life just getting a piece of paper. I am sure I wont be the only one.
That’s one choice that only you can make.
You definitely won’t be the only one. I’m staying but I think you’re smarter than me.
I am the same except 63 years of age in the same boat as they say.
You are against improving yourself? Are you that good? All of us can benefit from further education.
BTW – among the re-sitters the pass rate was down to about 39%.
hahahhaha that is so bad!!
From looking at all the cheap shots, sniping and vitriol directed at each other – it partly explains why the Industry has ended up a smouldering ruin. Very unseemly conduct – conduct that members of Professions refrain from engaging in, Publicly at least!
You obviously dont look at the comments section of the equivalent sites for accounting news…
You just proved my point.
Thanks for the whinge.
Maybe they could take note of standard 7 in relation to their fees and charges and ensure they are reasonable and represent value for money.
All you snipers in the cheap seats…if f you are a stockbroker you are examined on 3 subject areas that we legally are prohibited on giving advice…Insurance,Tax and Estate Planning…how would you like your industry exams to be conducted on that basis with the right to discontinue your job/livelihood if u don’t pass?
Well actually, all Stockbrokers must know their tax stuff. Your firm (or you) should have been registered with the Tax Practitioners Board heretofore. Not knowing your TPB obligations – or even that you have TPB obligations – is a major problem. What, you’ve have never honestly talked to clients about franked dividends or offsetting gains against losses? That’s tax advice right there superstar! As to Insurance they are basic questions, incl LIF which is 10 minutes of study, and there might be 1 or 2 questions on the exam (out of 70) on Estate Planning – such as super is not usually an estate asset.
The exam focuses on 3 broad areas – Financial Advice Regulatory & Legal requirements (that even stockbrokers are meant to follow); Applied Ethics (probs a stretch for u brokers…); & Financial Advice Construction that focused on the suitability of advice, consumer behaviour & decision making. It didnt need you to have any specific knowledge of insurance tax & estate planning…. just like there were no specific questions on stock analysis….
it’s not hard. just pass the damn thing.
Similar conundrum for Grain Marketers using grain swaps. The ethics is relevant, but the questions in the exam are a new world that we had to learn. So far most of us have passed.
Stockbrokers are part of the problem. Shooting from the hip. Least the accountants were cleared up before this.
Yes, THIS comment above by NC sums up perfectly everything to do with this absolute FARCE of an exam. I could have written NC’s comment as it is everything I believe about this hopeless FARCE-IA effort. Its existence is wrong and inappropriate on multiple levels. I’m a risk writer so the comment is doubly true for me as the so-called ‘exam’ is irrelevant to risk writers. We are still waiting for OUR exam and/or qualifications relevant to US. Makes me sick to think of the number of fellow riskies left the industry due to these aberrant self absorbed paid-for bureaucrats who have ruined the industry/businesses with their fully ill-conceived ‘exam’ and compliance roadblocks. Clients are the final beneficiaries of this mess and clients will pay for it for a long time to come. It all does ZERO for client best interest – much the opposite. Risk is a totally different discipline hence educational/quals requirements to investment advising. Like plumbers to electricians – ever so little overlap. Plumbers and electricians – imagine the outcry if they were both expected to have exactly the same qualifications – how would that work?
So you dont need to know what the Advice Regulations are….?? You dont need to know anything about Advice Construction, the suitability of advice, how consumers think & behave…..?? You probs dont need to have an understanding of Etical behaviour, frameworks & practical application….?? because after all you just flog insurance….
To ‘Anonymous’ who commented directly on NC: Well said and many advisers of all stripes are saying exactly the same thing.
Now, to the troll (also Anonymous) who asked if you need to know advice regulation: You are indeed a sad sounding individual, tearing down a fellow adviser (if you ARE even an adviser yourself, I suspect not). – there’s enough stress in the game currently without toxic creatures like your self making fellow advisers feel worse about themselves. Have you ever stopped to think of the service to clients of protecting them with insurance – probably not, looking at your immature comment on ‘flogging insurance’. Do everyone a favour and leave these pages with your negativity.
Well said.
Hello. That’s a really good point Diane, thank you. You’re mostly wrong. How can you say it does nothing for best interests? I think probably you have misunderstood the content, the process of learning and the research gone into this process.
the industry is BLOWING UP! IT’S COLLAPSING OMG OMG
This is the most irrelevant exam that I have ever sat and it is written in a way that these bureaucrats want you to fail. I know lousy advisors that have passed and exceptional ones who have been providing high quality advise with no complaints for decades that have failed. As part of the course advisors are meant to charge clients fees that are fair and reasonable yet FASEA charge $600 per sitting of this ambiguous rubbish! These times are stressful enough without this ridiculous exam and the long delays passing on the results to candidates. Wind up FASEA and put them on Job seeker or job keeper as they would not be suitable for roles outside the government.
Anyone who has not yet passed the FASEA exam should not be advising clients.
Anyone who only flogs life insurance for commission is not a financial adviser and should leave the industry
ANyoe who fails the exam and becomes a mortgage broker, never was a financial adviser
If you have not yet sat the exam or you need an extension to pass then you should leave the industry
This is our one big chance to cleanse our industry. FASEA is a great thing and should be an annual exam in my view.
Sounds troll like from a FASEA employee/consultant…please get off your high horse and stop contributing to this forum if all you want to do is denigrade others. You should be ashamed of yourself!!
Agreed. The industry will not be able to move ahead without a purge. Do the work, do the study and the exam should not be a problem. It is a complete joke that there is an extension for people who have failed…. its not like we didn’t have YEARS to prepare for this.
You missed Grain trading, definently not a financial adviser, The ethics and construction of advice is relevant, but the exam scenarios are just irrevilent.
Mostly correct, but we’re not having an annual exam when I’m president.
A timely reminder. The CBA escaped the CBA Advice Scandal, the FPA got compulsory memberships and you got FASEA….[u].How’d that exam work out for you Advisers.[/u]…They did the crime and you did the time….ha ha ha ha…next you’ll be paying an ASIC levy for Westpac Banks General Advice sins…oh wait that happened…Advisers must be idiots…Are you idiots? Let me remind you that the FPA represents the Barefoot Adviser, HestaSuper Advice, AwareSuper and somewhere in that mix Advisers too. Given that situation. I would say don’t throw out your study notes yet cause FASEA will most likely be an annual exam.
I’m afraid that you are right. The winners have already moved onto the next gig – whether it be with Twiggy Forrest’s philanthropic vehicle or wherever. The situation is so astonishingly bad – that it is farcical / laughable.
We still have vertically integrated product manufacturers, the Dealer Groups seem to still be able to “work an angle” to make some coin and the sole operator Adviser is just about gone.
It is really just an appalling mess and if it weren’t for Australia’s response to the Covid 19 pandemic – it would be hard to envisage a bigger screw up.
The exam was so simple it would be fine being annually. It is a bit of a joke that so called advisers are struggling to pass a simple ethics exam. The industry have been carrying these posers for too long and I for one will be glad when the profession finally progresses to the point that we can be proud.
Interesting that you say it was simple. What score did you get then?
Lol
It was simple. I sat the first one and was finished an hour before the end.
So did I. My point is that you have no idea what score you achieved. I might have scored 60%, I might have scored 99%. I have no idea. Nor do you. On this basis, how can you possibly say it was simple? You may have been one mark off a fail.
No study was required. It is open book. If you don’t believe the exam was simple then you need to reconsider your ability to practice in this space.
What a mess this Liberal Govt. has made of our industry!
The industry needed big reform and its now getting it. The industry is not a mess. The good practices have got better and will continue to get even better. The faults in the old industry model and its practices have been exposed and the result will be better advice and a better reputation for the industry.
The people who can’t see the benefits of change should sell up or merge into a larger quality practice that has the the knowledge and commitment to grow.
Good on you anonymous! 🙁 I have seen advisers already leaving after failing one attempt. One I know well passed every audit with flying colours. He passed everything he ever sat. Passed his degree! Has a bach of economics! So damned disheartened he’s gone. Left the industry for mortgage broking. The most honest, & tidy adviser I’ve ever met. Only 45 years old. So before you sit in judgement….fill out the fact finder first!!!!
Here here, I had the same experience with another advisor of excellent ilk.
That just doesnt ring true….
I know of a similar case….excellent track record over 20 years, clients absolutely love him……gone!
He left to chase the upfront and ongoing commissions offered by mortgage broking.
I am SOOOOOO done with this industry !!!
[quote=Anonymous]Good to see the weeding out of incompetents! [/quote]
No wonder our industry is in a shambles with that sort of attitude for fellow human beings.
You have no context and no idea of what others have or haven’t done to get to this point.
don’t worry it’s mostly accountants. financial planners are passing with flying colours
That’s a massive call. I’ve been around this industry to know that there are far too many advisers who have relied on the odd PD Day to get through. The accountants I know would through the exams. And I’m not an accountant.
I would have said our Industry is “in a shambles” with licensed Advisers still sitting the exam in large number more than 2 years after it began. Also;
1. 2,000 of about 20,000 licensed persons still have not yet sat once
2. The next sitting in 10 days time (Sitting 14) has 1,700 registered. YFKMAY?
3. Exam was to be offered for 18 month, then 2.5 years and NOW if you fail twice you get extended into 2022.
What a joke right?!
Hi Compassion, you’re right we dont know but I’m wondering how many of these advisers who have failed once or multiple times have done anything other than rock up to the exam?? Have they down any study? Did they do any of the practice questions available via FASEA? Did they attend one of the many workshops available for advisers to get some insight into what the exam may hold and refresh knowledge on areas that they may have forgotten or not used?
If they did, well I’d feel compassion for those who tried & failed but if they did none of these things then I can see “what they havent done to get to this point”. Fancy being a planner who fails to plan for their own survival….
The FASEA media release says that 69% of first time candidates passed the exam but that the overall pass rate was only 60%. Nearly 600 advisers were re-sitting the exam which means that a large chunk of those have failed for a second, third or maybe even a fourth time…..to drag the average down from 69% for first sitters to 60% overall.
Why are they allowing people who have failed this exam on multiple occasions to continue providing advice to clients?? And allowing this to go on for a further 12 months beyond the originally year-long extension
I was not aware of one question within the FASEA exam that examined ones ability to provide advice. Perhaps you could provide an example?
Exactly. This the reality – we have too many advisers who are no longer up to providing quality advice and service to clients. About time these people left the industry.
So we’re getting down to the bottom of the barrel now. You’d have to be having questions about the quality of the advice being given if they’re unable to pass this exam. Be interesting to see if there’s any pattern as to where these advisers are licensed…
accountants mainly
The exam is really just focused on legislative measures and nuanced understanding of how it’s applied. Most senior advisers understand the requirements, but not necessarily the wording of the legislative instruments around why they have to do the compliance task they do. Ultimately, I can see this exam being pertinent to a compliance officer, but for the most part it’s a pretty shit exam to measure ones ability to provide good quality advice to clients.
I do fail to believe this exam either adds to professionalism or only ensures good advisers are in the industry. I am baffled to how anyone that has sat this exam seems to think otherwise though.
Good words ‘Another Adviser’ – all true sadly. You’ve summed it up well. Sad other people commenting actually think this farce of an exam holds merit. It is a clerks mess, created by paid-for clerks with zero business experience and no client coal-face knowledge or time in the field. An absolute travesty that good long term advisers must have their careers decided by passing or not passing this irrelevant joke of an ‘exam’.
If they are that good & long term, this exam should not present any problems for anyone that knows what they are doing.
If they cannot pass the exam then so be it. The additional feedback and support is spoon-feeding and changes the legitimacy of the exam.
The exam is a FARCE – if you’ve sat it then you know this. failing such a farce as this is in no way reflective on an adviser’s solid ability to look after their clients – especially risk clients as it is totally irrelevant to risk advisers. A full and complete SMAM to enrich the career bureaucrats. Too sick and corrupt for words.
How do the candidate’s get informed, looked everywhere I can think of, don’t tell it’s via the post?
They don’t write to you. I passed mine almost two years ago (seems like an eternity) so this may have changed.. there was a program you accessed to book the exam. You were given a user name and password and it’s the same program. You’ll need to tell you’re licensee too (can’t remember the exact days you’ve got but I think it’s about 45 days) as ASIC needs to be informed (stupid system) …otherwise you’ll probably cop the late notice fine.
On the exam result statement if you scroll down to the bottom they have a feedback section that highlights the areas for improvement. It is like Kaplan Ontrack in that it refers you to the section to refer back to but does not assist with your understanding of the subject matter.
This exam is of no benefit to the financial services industry. A waste of time and money and a sad loss of experienced advisers to the advice industry. Sadly a loss for the clients of older advisers Hopefully these advisers and clients will send a message to the government next Federal election
You must have been asleep John during the CBA Advice scandal.. Certainly was of a benefit to them and to the FPA when they got all there Bank planners to sign up. Why blame the Government when the FPA called for higher education standards and they recommended to FASEA the minimum be a Bachelor of Fin Planning. You can’t keep blaming the Liberal when all they’re doing is reacting to recommendations from the sector.
I disagree with you John. I think you’ve failed to self-reflect and missed the point.
The weirdest and most useless exam I have ever taken. A competency exam that doesn’t test your ability to give good sound financial advice, nor make you any more ethical than you already are or are not. 6 weeks to get results back where almost 2/3 of the exam is multiple choice so right or wrong and known the minute you hit ‘End Exam’. The questions were quite frankly just weird and for most parts not relevant to me giving advice. One even asked ‘in your role as compliance officer to a licencee’… wtf!! I am not or ever will be a compliance officer!! For those new to the industry or just insurance only advisers or stockbrokers, I think they will quite unfairly struggle. FASEA has been such a disaster and those heading it up need to held accountable.
Well said.
Well said
It’s also a flat out rip-off. $600 for a 3 hour exam with no actual curriculum. Where’s the ACCC?
The exam is also an absolute rip-off. $600 or so for a 3 hour exam with no curriculum. Where’s the ACCC?
It is not about being a compliance officer it is about understanding the process and the underlying rules. If you dont like it please leave. Our industry is tarnished enough without you dragging us down even further
Anonymous – I’ve been in the industry over 20 years, specialist in many areas, never had a complaint against me, passed the 3 Kaplan practice exams with 89%, 93% & 98% – pretty sure I am not dragging ‘us’ down. If you think the exam was acceptable and contributed to making the industry materially better, you’ve got rocks in your head.
or 2 in 5 failed 😯
Good to see the weeding out of incompetents!
more successful candidates have left the industry than unsuccessful candidates passing at 2nd attempt. nothing to be read into this, just interesting.
Imagine them managing your money! Wooooops!!!
It’s flippant comments like this that quite frankly annoy me! What makes you think that everyone sitting the exam is managing money? There are many different roles within the advice industry!
ok imagine them flogging you insurance then
There are many different roles in every industry but to call yourself an accountant, lawyer, doctor or financial adviser you must pass an entry-level exam.
Only in ‘financial planning’ do you get to be a specialist before gaining a grounding across all areas as a generalist….
It’s people like you attempting to demonstrate your knowledge that give the education system a bad name.
The people managing your money are absolutely NOT REQUIRED to attempt or pass the FASEA exam.
Not sure where you get your information from but it needs work.
As background, I sat the exam and passed on my first attempt so your comment doesn’t offend me for that reason. Why I find it offensive is because the industry is already stressful enough with all the regulatory change and education requirements that need to be satisfied. Many advisers in our industry are under pressure and feeling anxiety and stress. Your comment, while it might make you feel better about yourself, does nothing to support those people who found out this morning that they didn’t pass this high stakes exam. It would be a far better profession if we all had some compassion for those who are feeling pretty down today and who would be feeling immense pressure about having to re-sit this exam, which I’m sure we would all say is pretty abstract in parts.
Nice Paul….
Well said, the guy is an ignoramus lacking in compassion. Plenty of advisers will struggle with that exam, just so poorly put together..
Maybe its not the exam that was ‘so poorly put together’ but the preparation by the advisers (or lack of) that was ‘poorly put together’….
Well said.
Compassion is a real quality we need. I agree with Paul. And I have no doubt the expedition to professionalism could have been handled better. But things needed to happen but here we are.
Anonymous, Please be informed before you comment.
The exam assumes you are a financial planner offering a comprehensive advice service including aged care, insurance, super contribution strategies and more. Some advisers have spent their lives offering fantastic specialist advice and focus on shares or risk insurance. Imagine a 60 year old specialist heart surgeon having to sit a GP exam – they would fail. Imagine a 55 year old experienced commercial architect having to sit a residential house construction exam – they would fail. Or a 40 year experienced suburban car mechanic sitting a “Competent Mechanic” exam covering diesel train and truck engines – they too would fail.
Furthermore, a 60 year old has limited keyboard skills. There are plenty of people who are highly competent, completely honest and excellent with the client but simply can’t type quickly. These people are completely dead in the water. Expecting a 60 year old to pass an exam via a keyboard with tough time limits and which requires a massive typed word count is a completely unfair way to test the competence of any individual.
As for the heart surgeon who couldn’t pass the GP exam, I doubt you would be so quick to criticise that person when you need his or her specialist advice. He or she may be useless with ankle sprains, baby care and skin cancer detection but superb with identifying and fixing heart conditions.
So, do your research before you comment. Be fair. Thank you.
Those would be great analogies if the FASEA exam required broad knowledge of financial planning technical issues, and lots of typing. But it doesn’t. It’s highly focused on legal and ethical issues, and most questions are multiple choice or short answer.
If you want to see what a genuinely difficult wide ranging technical exam with lots of long format answers looks like, try doing the CFP exam. Luckily for most advisers, that one isn’t compulsory. Not even for “grandfathered” CFPs.
Anon – That’s simply false. There are absolute questions on specific areas of advice.
I’m 45 (a qualified FP), competent on the keyboard and still struggled to keep up with the typing requirements. I know a 60 year old adviser who struggled with the typing, so don’t just assume this isn’t an issue for others because it wasn’t an issue for you. That person has tremendous skills, is highly professional and has strong ethics. Yet he failed and is leaving the industry. His clients will be left in a lesser position as a result. He didn’t fail because of issues with his ethics or understanding of the law, he knows those requirements very well. Also, he doesn’t have a list of client complaints. He is completely disheartened and broken. His clients have benefitted from his excellent advice for decades. Yet he is leaving because he doesn’t understand personal insurance and super contributions strategies?!?!? Yes, really.
As for you being a CFP, well done to you. But you don’t need to puff your chest and beat the drums. Not everyone wants to be or needs to be a CFP. You ought to be more polite, respectful and understanding of the needs of other professionals, just as we need to be with our clients. A competent specialist adviser does have a place in this industry (they can refer when needed) just as specialists exist in so many other sectors . My analogies are correct BTW. Yet Financial Series is being treated differently, its one test for all. The FASEA requirements assume all advisers can service all advice areas. If medicos, architects, physios, dentists, teachers, accountants can specialise, why can’t financial advisers? Imagine an experienced mum and dad accountant having to sit an accounting exam covering corporate accounting when they are 40 years into their profession? Imagine them being asked specific question on international tax, R&D tax treatment and profit transfer questions. Most would realise that’s not the area they practice and wouldn’t need to have that knowledge. They would fail and sadly feel like a failure. They would have to close their suburban practice and leave their clients behind. What good would could possible come from that?
Your comment is interesting but doesn’t quite make sense to me. The exam can be learned – passing exams is a skill like any other. You can just keep learning and sitting it until you are done. That shouldn’t be enough to leave the industry for a successful adviser.
If I had to tell my clients I was being kicked out of the industry because I couldn’t pass a simple law and ethics exam, I too would be tempted to make up a story about how unfair and discriminatory it was.
Anon – FYI, I passed on the first sitting so you are completely wrong. You have missed the points raised. I’m standing up for the good advisers who have spend their adult lives working in the sector, who are highly skilled, compliant and valued by their clients. They are being shoved out of the industry due to the issues raised. That’s not fair and nor is it made up. And yes, the questions on non-advice areas together with the need to be a speed typist IS most definitely discriminatory. You are wrong on all fronts.
If it were a client service, best interest, disclosure, professionalism, ethics and compliance exam and where common place client scenarios were used, it would be fair and I think the industry would support it.
There is no need to be a speed typist to complete that exam. You’re just making excuses.
How did this ‘mythical adviser’ ever manage to do business in the 21st century if he doesnt have even rudimentary capabilities with a computer & keyboard….
To qualify as a CA or CPA you are required to pass exams on tax, audit, financial reporting and management accounting even if you are not going to touch on all of these areas in your career. Accountants need to prove their knowledge base in areas of practice they will never work in so why wouldn’t financial planners.
A heart specialist would not be able to practice as a GP without further study. As a financial adviser once you pass this exam you can then practice and give advice in any area of financial planning. Shouldn’t this mean that you need to be fully across all areas of advice. It would be foolish to assume that people will stick to their lane and never branch into an area they have no business being in.
Perhaps it is you that needs to do some research before commenting. Maybe just even get off that high horse.
Bruh!! *face palm* stop comparing a specialist adviser to specialist surgeons, doctors etc. We are no way in the same league………even if you are a risk only adviser….your are more generalist than you think and should know at least 50% of each aspect of advice, and therefore enough to pass the exam.