ASIC has confirmed existing providers taking a career break by 31 December this year will not be required to pass the FASEA exam by 1 January 2022 to retain their “existing provider“ status and, as such, would not be considered new entrants upon their return.
However, after they return from their break, they will be required to pass the exam before they can be authorised as a relevant provider again.
Similarly, advisers moving into a different role within their organisation that takes them away from providing advice, and hence strips them of their relevant provider status, won’t need to pass the exam before 1 January 2022.
Upon their return to advice, they, much like their colleagues on a career break, would need to first sit and pass the exam before regaining their relevant status.
The corporate regulator also clarified that relevant providers as of 31 December 2021, that have not passed the FASEA exam or attempted to do so twice before 1 January 2022, will be treated as new entrants.
Conversely, those that have attempted the exam twice and failed will be eligible for an extension to 30 September 2022. This means that they will retain their existing provider status until the end of September.
ASIC also confirmed the requirements for “new entrants”, which include a qualification approved by the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority; a successful FASEA exam; 40 hours of CPD a year; compliance with the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics; and a completed full-time professional year that includes at least 100 hours of structured training.
Those who have failed twice shouldn’t be allowed to hold onto their status until September 2022. But I agree with the extension for the exam for those who are on a career break (whether due to illness or taking a different role for a time). I can understand that those advisers who have already sat the exam may feel this is unfair, but I’m assuming ASIC is doing this so that existing advisers who aren’t, or haven’t been, practicing, don’t get kicked off the register. This is a smart move from a retention point of view with so few new entrants.
Regarding existing advisers who are on a career break only, as long as they maintain their CPD, ethics code etc etc what difference does it make to the professionalisation of the industry? Zero. However, extending advisers who have failed twice until September next year – why do they need so long? And I agree this does drag the professionalisation of the industry down as we would continue to have advisers who have failed the exam, actually continuing to practice.
This is a slap in the face to all advisers who busted their ass to do the right thing. We had a one year extension!
By extending the other FASEA deadline to 2026, we’ve compromised the emergence of our Profession and thus the right to self regulation and reduced compliance.
Most annoying…