As noted by the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA), ASIC has confirmed that 882 advisers, who had attempted the exam at least twice before the end of 2021, have qualified for an extension until 30 September 2022.
“This is a group of advisers who we will be focused on in 2022, as we look to support them to pass the exam before the deadline,” the AFA said in a statement.
“We call on all advisers to assist this group in whatever way they can.”
Following questioning by Queensland Nationals Senator Susan McDonald during a Senate Estimates hearing in February, ASIC has also provided a split of advisers in Australia by age as of 24 February.
|
Age Category |
No. |
Per cent |
|
65 and over |
986 |
6 per cent |
|
55 to 64 years |
3,075 |
17 per cent |
|
40 to 54 years |
8,328 |
48 per cent |
|
Under 40 |
4,980 |
28 per cent |
|
Unknown |
123 |
1 per cent |
|
Total |
17,492 |
100 per cent |
The statistics come as the corporate regulator undertakes a review of the Financial Adviser Register (FAR) to ensure all advisers who did not pass the exam by 31 December 2021 and did not qualify for the extension have been updated to a “ceased” status.
ASIC revealed late last month that just over 30 per cent of candidates passed the February exam, with 73 per cent resitting the exam for at least the second time.
The next exams are set to go ahead between Thursday, 12 May and Monday, 16 May. Enrolment is open now and closes on Tuesday, 26 April.
Just sat the Fasea exam again. The exam and the questions are so unrelated to to our daily job. Most people just want basic advice like you need to save for your retirement (explain the tax benefits etc) and you need to protect your income and your family if you die or become disabled. Do you really need to pass an exam or your career is over, i would like to see how that one would go down with teachers or accountants.
I am not great at exams and studied for 3 weeks prior, did all the pre questions did some special course and the questions they asked were so tricky and ambiguous i was at times just laughing when i read the question with a what!
Very difficult with one screen and all 3 true / false right or no soup for you.
The exam is not easy at all, some people read the notes the night before and pass and someone like me studies for weeks and fails. Some people are just good at passing exams and hopeless at selling (getting people to do things they know they should be doing) and some people are great at selling and hopeless at exams and yes there are some you are great at both (Good luck to you).
Most people make they money from property 90% and we as a profession do not advise on this but narrow ourselves down to managed funds and shares and some tax stuff. Not sure the whole ethics thing is alive and well in the real world because some of the clients that come in and see me i shake my head at the advice they were given and often to sell a property and buy managed funds etc
Real estate agents do very well and they are not a profession and do not have an ethics exam to pass. Lets face it financial planning is a sales role you get people to do things that you know they should so when was the last time you insisted on your client buying a well located property instead of your platform, but you can not load a direct property on your platform, so forget that asset class
Oh well i better start studying for they next attempt and maybe look at a career in real estate where the clients understand it. Mostly the advisors all have a couple of properties but that is not the correct course for there clients maybe we have an ethics course that includes direct property as an asset class where the client makes a lot more and gets it but you can not charge as much them.
The extension has provided us with a list of 900 people who are unsuited to being financial advisers.
Meanwhile over 1 million Australians now no longer have access to a financial adviser. What a cluster.
Anyone still talking about selling super to people must have spent the last decade in Austin Powers cryogenic chamber. The exam’s content was far from perfect, but if it’s helping transition out those not interested or equipped to be a professional adviser/planner, then a good result for Australians looking for quality financial advice.
Again for the knockers that prey on other industry experts to share their clients understand this?
Financial Planning is simply advice predominantly on superannuation and insurance ? Why is a university degree required to sell life insurance?
Why is a university degree required to sell superannuation? It doesn’t
And for those who have passed, you are now filled into spending another $15,000 to $20,000 completing a tertiary course and half of you will fail and or not have the financials to pay for it?
The industry is simply decimated by bureaucratic meddling and we are all sucked in?
I can confirm the ambiguity of 30 percent of questions in each test are misleading or incorrect
Have some respect. This needs to be tested in the high court and in line with the Australian Constitution.
Ethics ? There are no ethics in this process!!!
The fact that you think financial advice is only about selling life insurance and super is exactly the reason why the Government are doing what they are.
We knew about FASEA in 2017 and were also given a 12-month extension and then 9-month extension for those who attempted the exam twice and failed. How much more help do you need.
What an embarrassment to the industry!. Yes, the exam was a waste of time but if you can’t pass a simple exam how do you tie your shoelaces?
I use velcro
How many of these 900 advisers actually want to put the effort into passing the exam? For many of them the extension to the extension of the exam deadline, is just an extension to the extension of their retirement transition.
Probably 10% being 90 that have some real genuine excuse. Collateral damage sadly. Another 1% say 9 just can’t do exams or just can’t understand why they’d write an exam to trick & rule out rather than test. 801 would be just going through the motion, or the dog ate their FASEA notes type of people that make it look bad for those 90. If we were a profession 100 advisers would have been allowed to appeal to there “peers” being real life actual planners who would sit in judgment.
The statistics relating to ages don’t support the whole “I’m old so I can’t do a 3 hour exam due to it being so long since I’ve done an exam” concept
???