ASIC has created a new section on its website to provide an overview of several facets of the incoming requirements.
These include the scope of the reforms, advisers’ obligations, FASEA information, compliance schemes for the code of ethics and updates to the financial adviser register.
“This information will help financial advisers, and those coming into the advice industry, prepare for the new requirements,” ASIC said in a statement.
The new resource can be accessed here.
Clients undergo a range of emotional responses throughout the advice process and, according to new financial adviser-led research, advisers’ ability...
The financial services software firm said its renewed focus on core platforms, technology investment and client engagement reflects a leaner,...
ASIC has released a new regulatory guide for exchange-traded products that consolidates previous guidance as the ETF market undergoes significant...
Private credit is reshaping commercial real estate finance. Success now depends on collaboration, discipline, and strong governance across the market.
Excitement sells stories, not stability. For long-term wealth, consistency and compounding matter most — proving that sometimes boring is the...
Excitement drives headlines, but steady returns build wealth. Real estate private credit delivers predictable performance, even through volatility.
Australian investors increasingly view Cardano (ADA) as a compelling cryptocurrency investment opportunity, particularly through staking mechanisms that generate passive income....
THANK YOU to all who commented re answering my great concerns about [b]”The Exam”[/b] 🙂 I’m still confused as some are sighting [b]2021[/b] when we much pass it and others are saying [b]2023[/b]! Further, some are saying it is only for new advisers and some say it is for all. Please explain Pauline?
.
Mt specific concerns about “The Exam” include, but are not limited to:-
.
1) I’m a humble risk writer and with my luck the damn subject matter will be derivatives, CFD’s, complex FP family trust and estate scenarios/case studies etc. I currently outsource all this stuff to a trusted ‘full’ financial planner who lives and breathes it. I do not. I live and breathe life insurance and its applicablity to a given scenario – all I’ve ever done! Is there a RELEVANT “exam” just for Risk Writers? Real Estate consultants/sales people? If so why not! I say each discipline is very different. Risk writing is a VERY different discipline and knowledge store to investments, currency movements, derivative calculations/applicability & share portfolios et al. Why must I display in depth knowledge in working with these esoteric areas just to tailor an IP policy for a worker in Blacktown at 7pm in his home at night? It is ludicrous.
.
2) The time taken for someone like me to study for that exam and God knows what cost given these wholly unnecessary “degrees” we must get are $40K a pop.
.
3) That I will expend this money and time in, say, 2021 to attempt this irrelevant exam (to me) and then I’m up and leaving the game in 2022 or 23.
Thanks you and . . . .a penny for your thoughts guys and gals . . . .
I think one would expect the exam to have a breadth of topics and be fairly complex and difficult if the intent of the regulators -and those with input into the exam- is to lift the standards for advisers and would include equity and fixed income, economics, portfolio management, derivatives and alternative investments, financial reporting, Tax,
Thank you Papa, Therein lies my problem and that of many riskies . . . we know about these financial instruments and can generally explain them to people and any possible ramifications (or not) on their daily lives – in a GENERAL way. These damn academics that create these exams want us to be high level mathematicians and calculate related things to derivatives, SMSF’s, alternative investments and complex portfolio management which will never translate to helping me write and help manage client’s IP, trauma TPD or death cover. Just won’t. The academics can’t help themselves – it is what they do – live in academia while we all actually help people by doing our real life jobs. No exam that is created for a full financial planner dealing in all these areas of high complexity of international finance and the instruments mentioned is appropriate, necessary of helpful to a pure risk adviser. I off load all that stuff to a specialist in those areas like many other riskies do as it doesn’t interest me like protecting people with risk insurance. I will argue until I am blue in the face with anyone that we DO INDEED need a specialist risk licence to be available and an APPRORIATE syllabus to support it and advisers.
you will need to know the basics if you want to be able to call yourself a financial planner or financial adviser as they will be restricted terms going forward. you can still specialize in risk, that is an important component but only after you have a basic grounding in the discipline
Well, that describes me! I’m ready to sit my risk exam now, maybe the same time all the full financial planners (doing full complex planning) do their exams eh?! I’ve never even called myself a generalist – I am a pure risk adviser and more than proud of it.
The harsh truth is that my clients who are anesthetists are required to do the general medical degree and exams etc before specialising… Financial planning should be no different.
Bit of an esoteric comparison there methinks. An anaesthetist literally cannot do his job without a thorough knowledge of the other biological systems within the body.It is black and white there. He simply must study general medicine, pass with flying colours and then go on to his speciality. Me? As a risky I already have a good working knowledge of economics and the above mentioned instruments BUT test me on the finer points, points unnecessary to do risk (like they do in these damn exams) and I will probably fail. So, you are incorrect – Financial planning IS different. But thank you for your response.
I don’t really think the exam is anything to be worried about, as long as you have the technical knowledge to undertake your job as a financial planner!
you might be surprised at how many fail
I don’t want to pretend I am a financial planner – I’m a risk adviser ferrr chrisssakkkeess! I feel I need to shout this from a rooftop as nobody seems to be listening. We need a specialist risk qualification, specialist exam and study course. There are skills that riskies need and most have that academic planners and investment planners do not have. IT IS A VERY DIFFERENT DISCIPLINE THAN INVESTMENTS!
.
Now, I’m getting the STRONG opinion that nobody cares – not life companies (of all they should!), most ‘full’ financial planners, accountants, politicians (self interested idiots who don’t understand anyway) and other industry bodies we all know and don’t love. NOBODY except riskies seems to understand it is a different discipline and this FASEA debacle is the perfect time to acknowledge it in open forum. I’m convinced nobody will grab this ball and run with it and as such I feel my decision to leave this crumbling industry is more than justified.
.
Risk advisers having to do the same exams as full financial planners – it is absolute hogwash. The blasted life companies should have taken this ball and run with it years ago the hapless fools. So self-centred and stupid in the real world they can’t see what is in their own best interest. They think getting RID of advisers is in their best interests. Poor fools.
This is all quite interesting. The table on ASIC’s website shows two groups – those registered after 1 January 2019 and those registered between 1 January 2016 and 1 January 2019. There is a third group –
those registered before 1 January 2016, who are not covered by this table. They are specifically separated from those registered after that date, suggesting that they will be subject to a different set of conditions. The table shows six conditions. The ongoing compliance requirements (code of ethics, CPD, compliance scheme) will be the same for all advisers. This third group will not have to do a professional year. That leaves just the exam and/or the degree requirement to be different for advisers registered before 2016. Interesting.
Of course, it could just be that the ASIC website is in error (hard to imagine, but possible). But as they stand the FASEA document and the ASIC website appear to differ. At the very least, this suggests that nothing is very certain. Hopefully, this will help advisers worry less about the changes.
There’s no third group mate. It’s just – 2 Existing and New. The wording is not a reference to a persons appointment date. “Existing Adviser” are those people who remained or became authorised during the period 1 Jan 2016 to 1 Jan 2019. This captures everyone..
Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up!
You say [b]”the exam” [/b]and the ASIC link mentions [b]”the exam”[/b] a few times but gives absolutely no details about [b]”the exam”[/b] we must pass by 2019. Can anybody please clarify if we existing advisers must pass [b]”the exam” [/b]and what[b] “the exam” [/b]entails exactly? Who holds or sets this exam – ASIC, our dealer – Kaplan??? Is it simply the CPD points it mentioned a few times – couldn’t be, could it?! Please, someone, this concerns me greatly as it is a lot closer than my planned exit in 2023.
“the exam”” the format etc is yet to be decided, you’ll have two attempts and I believe you must sit it prior to 2023
In the link it says existing advisers must pass the exam by 1 Jan 2021. The exam is to be written and administered by FASEA. Remember, as of right now FASEA has no staff apart from the board and a CEO. The staff of FASEA will presumably be responsible for writing and administering the exam.
The CFP program already includes a very comprehensive exam. It is ridiculous to force Real CFPs to do another exam. It is also ridiculous for FASEA to reinvent the wheel with limited resources. Why not just use the CFP exam and give Real CFPs an exemption? Advisers who pass it could then get an exam exemption if they complete the CFP program.
Anything put out by the FPA would fail the ethics part. Did that CFP exam have on it Question 1) If you get a lump sum from the CBA advice team, to help shape advice is this a conflict of interest?.. Answer No or NO. Question 2) if you set up a separate entity to get revenue (FPEC) to avoid a conflict is this a conflict of interest.. Answer No or NO.
I believe there is an option for highly qualified advisers advisers to submit there qualifications and based on those be exempted from writing the exam.
i suspect that would be based on extensive post grad coursework though and not the CFP which is internal coursework
What is your source for ‘two attempts’? I find it hard to believe a financial planner would permanently lose their livelihood because they fail the test twice.
Pilots do the same thing and that was there stupid bizzare thinking. Check out The Corporations Amendment (Professional Standards of Financial Advisers) Bill 2016.
you would get two chances within a 12 month period to pass it. like the smsf auditors do as an example
If you are currently an adviser, you will actually have until 2021 to pass the said exam (the 2019 date is for ‘new’ entrants). There are no details about the exam, however it will be set by FASEA and it’s expected that it will entail an assessment of technical knowledge as well as regulatory understanding (e.g think best interest duty requirements). CPD requirement will be in addition and no different to what is currently required of advisers. The key difference is that CPD requirements will be set by FASEA so it will be consistent in the industry (rather than varying from licensee to licensee, which is currently the case)
Oh, just GREAT! [b]”The Exam” [/b]is going to be created by those proven useless fools at FASEA. That REALLY inspires me to think it will be a worthwhile thing . . .NOT! God, does this twighlight zone ever come to an end?
All existing Advisers (defined as “on the FAR before 31/12/18”) must sit and pass the national exam within the 2020 calendar year. The content of the exam has not been revealed and FASEA will determine the format and content of the exam as just announced by ASIC. Exam likely to contain the RG146 essentials (Insurance, Superannuation & Investments), more than probably offsite, and you will be able to resit if you are unsuccessful at the first attempt. Also one would expect that there will be practice exams available beforehand.
You only need to pass the exam[b] FROM[/b] if you’re a new entrant, [b]by[/b] 2021 if an existing planner However, that being said, if the consultation period for the relevant degree debacle ends late June, how are they ever going to agree on and have the process for the exam ready to roll out for people to start completing from 2 Jan 2019. Doesn’t leave much confidence in the process!
you have it in one – this is about non value add jobs creation-
[quote=David]What about those registered before jan 2016- a catch all or more to come on this group.
As long as you remain authorised (and are not banned etc), you will continue to be defined as an ‘existing’ provider’ – meaning you will have until 2021 to pass the exam and till 2024 to meet the education requirements
As long as you remain authorised (and are not banned etc), you will continue to be defined as an ‘existing’ provider’ – meaning you will have until 2021 to pass the exam and till 2024 to meet the education requirements
What about those registered before jan 2016- a catch all or more to come on this group. Either way- degree equivalent is a key term so there needs to be more clarification here especially if the current CFP program has been completed. If there are 4 credits for CFP then an institution that requires 4 more units to satisfy requirements and the dean mob approve it, there will be some direction to comply and enrollments can begin. Deakin, if you want to win the enrollment race- a gold mine awaits.
Deakin only offers credit for 4 CFP units. The enrolments race will be won by an institution that offers Grad Dip credit for all 5 CFP units. Deakin is being greedy and hiding behind their “4 credits is the maximum we allow” policy. Given that the CFP program is actually run by Deakin you’d think they would relax their bureaucratic policy in this situation.
CFP 5 is an exam, not an area of study- no university will give subject credit for it. Additionally, TEQSA requires that any degree awarded by a university, at LEAST 50% of the program must have been completed at the university. This means no university can give more than 50% credits in a program, that’s 4 credits in a Grad Dip and 6 credits in Masters. The most you can get at a university for CFP is 4 credits. Several universities on the FPEC list are offering 4 credits for CFP towards a masters degree. There are no Grad Dips on the FPEC list as at today, but there are some going through the accreditation process.
Incorrect. CFP5 is also a large financial planning project. Very similar to subjects on many Grad Dip and Masters courses. It’s the project component of CFP 5 that should qualify for exemption from a course unit. The CFP exam should qualify for exemption from the ASIC exam.
If the TEQSA 50% rule is a binding legal requirement on universities then FPA should immediately reduce the CFP program from 5 units to 4, and refund those members who wasted money on a 5th unit they will be forced to repeat.