The corporate regulator on Friday confirmed that of the 195 candidates that sat the May exam, 63 per cent or 122 candidates passed.
ASIC disclosed 74 per cent of the May candidates were sitting the exam for the first time.
To date, 20,570 individual candidates have sat the exam, of which over 19,020 (92 per cent) have passed, demonstrating that they have the skills to apply their knowledge of advice construction, ethics, and legal requirements to the practical scenarios tested in the exam.
Of those who have passed:
- Over 15,810 are recorded as current financial advisers on ASIC’s Financial Adviser Register (FAR).
- Over 2,990 are ceased advisers on the FAR and may be re-authorised in the future.
- Over 950 passed while completing their professional year of work and training.
The exam has been continuously conducted by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) since its inception and, according to ASIC, follows a rigorous process to ensure all candidates in all cycles are held to the same standard.
The next exam sitting will be held on Thursday, 10 August 2023.
Enrolments for the August sitting will open on Monday, 3 July and close on Friday, 21 July.
This exam remains a complete waste of timr and resources and should be scrapped.
ASIC fails to understand that the range of professions within the financial sector means there presentation of the data is useless. They need to report as sectors of passing within the sector ie Stockbrokers, Insurance advisers Financial Planning so the public can see useful information. The fact that 92% have passed does not tell us how many times fails have reseat the exam.
Absolutely right John White! It has been more than a pet peeve of mine over the years when risk specialists are lumped together with ‘financial advisers’ as if they are exactly the same thing. An investment adviser specializes as does a risk adviser – it isn’t rocket science but some journalists and most politicians keep doing this and it is beyond irksome!
has anyone every looked at why we have such poor failure rates at this exam – having run a training organization – and been an examiner in a former life – if my students were only getting early 60% through on the exam I would be seriously annoyed on two counts – I have a failure to do one of a number of things – I have not properly trained, I have not properly constructed the exam – and if the exam has been going for some time – with enough data points – I have failed to properly construct not only the exam – but also I have failed to provide meaningful feedback. On past track record from Academia – I wont expect any improvement to the professionalism of this moral imperative
The organisation setting the exam is not involved in providing the training. Exam sitters have come from a wide range of training experiences from a variety of third parties. It would be interesting to know the main courses and institutions of those who are failing.
Given many of the exam failers these days are new entrants, then by definition their training must have been a “FASEA Approved Degree”. Let’s not forget that in the early days of the exam, before FASEA Approved Degrees had been trundled out for purchase, the exam pass rate was much higher.
I suppose this moral imperative is now going to be an obligation on those contacting clients from the ISN network = nothing to see here
I love the comment – [b]To date 20,570 individual candidates have sat the exam, of which over 19,020 (92 per cent) have passed, demonstrating they have the skills to apply their knowledge of advice construction, ethics and legal requirements to the practical scenarios tested in the exam[/b]. I do not think sitting an exam that has been written by people who have never been in the industry or expelled from the industry bears any credence on what this statement means. What a disgrace that this is still occurring in 2023. Anyway, onwards and upwards.
one serious qualification there – 19k might have got through the exam finally – but many tripped up and had to resit – how is it possible that an exam that has had this much attention and this many candidates still is a failure – from Acers’ perspective – mid to low 60% pass rate on pretty much all first time around. Either the material is impossible – not bloody likely, the students are stupid – for the most part they are all new entrants -so again not likely. what’s left – the exam technique and protocols are total rubbish. Oh, wait they have been from day one. The individual that was charged (from the FASEA world) with the construction and application of the exam – quite happily admitted they know their stuff – but they don’t answer the questions in the way we want. The part that was particularly pleasing was the barefaced falsehoods given by the FASEA team to the Senate Estimates – embarrassing and a snow job.
You have ignored the most obvious and likely alternative of all… the education quality has been poor. Most “FASEA Approved” degrees are second rate courses from third rate institutions. Advisers who passed first time early on were mostly graduates from good quality degrees and universities (which were not FASEA recognised).