In a statement, the authority said over 82 per cent of candidates had passed the exam, which was held in seven regional and 10 metropolitan centres from 13 to 18 February.
The authority also gave an update on sitting numbers overall, revealing that 32 per cent of advisers on the ASIC register, or 7,488 advisers in total, had sat the exam so far. Of those, 2,231 had sat the exam in February.
FASEA said 27 per cent of advisers on the ASIC register had passed the exam so far.
The authority’s chief executive, Stephen Glenfield, said FASEA was pleased with the outcomes of the exam session and congratulated successful candidates on their completion of “an important component of their education requirements under the Corporations Act“.
FASEA said over 1,700 advisers were currently registered for the June session, registrations for which were open until 22 May.
It said face to face exam sessions would not be held and that remote exam bookings would be open from 14 April, while candidates would also have the option to defer until August if they preferred.
Registrations for the August and October exam sessions would also open on 14 April, FASEA said.
hoping the pass rates don’t increase dramatically next sitting when exam can be sat in the relaxed environment of ones choosing as opposed to the draconian exam conditions of FASEA examinations to date where one must ensure even hankerchiefs, lip balm and coins are emptied from ones pockets and left at the front of the room as apparently they may lead to cheating. My worry was not failing – I feared a stress related heart attack or stroke during completion of exam.
I sat and passed this exam. I do question the format of the exam and the fact that most of the skill required is to interpret double negative questions – just so stupid and typical of people who have only ever worked in Academia
Yep it was seriously the most ridiculous waste of time ever. I could have been reading about the seriousness of this chinese virus and working out whether taking another 10% risk out of portfolios was in the clients best interest. Instead I was trying to work out this bs waffle that poses as a test of our ethics?
[quote=Anonymous]Well yes, you should. How would you like your finances advised by an adviser that couldn’t even pass the exam??????????????[/quote][quote=Anonymous]Well yes, you should. How would you like your finances advised by an adviser that couldn’t even pass the exam??????????????[/quote]
You are a bafoon, a typical response from a fool who fails to see that the act already defines integrity and trust? This is purely a money making indictment on the industry. Pass diplomas, pass advanced diplomas, engage in training and engage in ongoing education now an ethics exam??? get off your pulpit mr anonymous it has nothing to do with solving the equity risk premiums to investing or the clients risk to investing. None of you are Financial advisers in its true sense, you are risk and super sales people get a grip and start looking at what this industry is truly about. Glorified sales, so let the real experts continue to provide their educated guesses as to what the global markets are doing. FASEA is a scam and all you associations are so weak you herd like sheep. The only difference is what pen you choose to play in. So stand up grow some aggotts and represent the sales people fairly without gouging them time after time. Maybe we should do an ethics exam for our drivers licence renewals whilst we are under marshal law.
27% is a very low number, I am quite surprised at that.Considering 5 % or more would be non client facing compliance officers or Dealer Group employees who have kept their registration up. The rest of the industry needs to start sitting soon or the exodus numbers may be worst then first thought.
I will make a relatively very well educated guess that only around 50% of all advisers will end up taking this test. If the figure was to be higher then there would be much more than only 27% completed so far. This is going to be the death of our once great industry. The exam on ‘ethics’ is an abject waste of time – more emphasis should be place on client relationship skills, empathy and advice industry knowledge. You CANNOT effectively test the ethics of a person by using a paper test or digital test. It may or may NOT bear any relationship with what that individual will do under pressure in the real world. I’m no genius but it is clear to me. Maybe these people making the rules for out lives and careers are not even as smart as I?!
Just when i thought i’d removed all the FASEA “i passed” herd from Linkedin, another bunch have replaced them, this time with even more hashtags #leavemealone
so easy. didnt even study
I spoke to one of the exam developers and they intend to increase the technicality of the questions to raise the bar on the pass rate – now they are asking questions such as “John wants to start a TTR strategy, what is the middle draw down percentage amount he can draw on if he was born in May 1969?”
How is that an ethical question? It is a straight out legislated knowledge question that most advisers would have to look up.
I passed thankfully – first and only New Wealth Entrant under YBR (now shifted to Interprac). Very much relieved I can assure you. I will say that there was some ambiguity within the exam which I believe was quite unfair – no amount of training or experience will assist in answering those.
So what happens if you fail? Do you lose your career and right to earn a living in a blink of an eye?
Well yes, you should. How would you like your finances advised by an adviser that couldn’t even pass the exam??????????????
You are a clown. It’s not that simplistic you Bafoon. The exam is too broad and ambiguous. No other industry has to go through what we do..
Well for a start, it is an ethics exam so it is flawed from the outset – you can’t effectively test for ethics. What is said in an exam and what is done in real life may bear zero correlation. Secondly, it is widely acknowledged that the questions are loaded and worded so as to deceive. It is much more an exam to catch people out in word interpretation rather than their solid knowledge on the question. this has been confirmed by numerous advisers who have passed the exam. It is deplorable. What about older advisers who have their clients best interest at heart and have been looking after them for 30 years ++? These older advisers don’t cope with these idiot exam questions designed to mislead as well as younger advisers. The whole establishment responsible for these exams should be ashamed.
I disagree. Basic common sense will see you pass the exam. That is why the pass mark is so high, particularly given a ‘credit’ is the benchmark.
The questions have been tested I believe in order to alleviate the issue of ‘word interpretation’.
I think it’s time advisers just got on with it rather than complain.
I’d suggest you complete the Ethics bridging subject prior to sitting the exam. It made the exam so much easier with little additional study required (simply complete the practice exams). My colleagues didn’t have a problem with it at all.
How can Glenfield be happy with 401 advisers failing. The exam and FASEA are a waste of time and space. 27% of advisers have passed with only a few sittings left for the year and advisers will still be sweating on whether the legislation to extend timeframes gets passed. Worrying numbers and cutting it fine…….maybe the FPA will have 50-60% less members less next year????
Given the scheduling timetable, 3 month between sittings rule, and 6-8 weeks taken to mark exams, there’s only a maximum of 2 more attempts available to advisers who haven’t passed yet. (Unless the extension is passed)
It makes FASEA look tough. Don’t you get it? FASEA are only interested in public perception of themselves. They have zero interest in our profession or our clients. Have a look at the Professional Year, CPD, Education requirements and Code of Ethics. Everything they do is designed to make FASEA look good. They could give a crap if their regulations are deeply flawed and not supported by the adviser community.
Good to know 18% of advisers who thought they were fit to advise clients have absolutely disgraced themselves. This is a simple test and they failed. Good to see.
Perhaps someone at Host Super could do with a test? APRA and ASIC – what qualifications do they have? Remind me please.
Whoa …one ugly angry petty little dude. Take a bath
It is not a simple test. It is designed to deceive from the standpoint of the logic of most questions. This has been confirmed by successful applicants. The concept is poorly conceived anyway as you cannot test for ethical behaviour in the classroom. This is basic intelligence to know this a – what is wrong with these people AND with people who accept this sad farce at face value and believe blindly what they are told. This exam is a money grab and serves zero other purpose rather than forcing good hearted and longstanding advisers from the industry who DO have the qualifications to advise. I dare anyone to say and prove this is not so. Our industry is being ruined by classroom academics that have never truly left school.
I have passed the exam, but would say that it doesn’t represent our technical knowledge or ability to advise. I think it misses the mark completely. Unfortunately it means advisers who are unfit to advice can still pass this, and those who may be suitably fit to provide expert advice, may fail.
Well that’s probably because it isn’t supposed to test your technical knowledge.
Just had my remote exam via PorctorU; the exam is a complete waste of time and 2/3 of the questions were not Ethic related. I can’t see how anyone can be more or less ethical just because they passed or failed the exam.
I also just wrote the exam. Agree completely with the above posts interpretation of the split between ethical/technical questions.
I have a number of formal quals behind me and have over 20 years of experience working in and around Financial Planning and Funds Management. I attended 2 x prep. courses and read a lot of material in preparation for the exam (sat it in Feb 20). And while I passed, I found that exam extremely difficult and some of the questions to be extremely ambiguous! 82% pass rate means almost 20% or 1/5th of advisers who sat the February exam failed. What is FASEA trying to achieve here?
I spent one weekend preparing and another half an hour before the day and passed the first exam. I found it hard but was pretty sure I passed. It is actually not too bad an ethics exam as there is relatively little rote knowledge to parrot.
You are right – I have a Masters in Financial Planning. The questions weren’t even decipherable. It was just embarrassing and wasted 8 hours of my life. The questions were either easy, stupid or unfathomable.
When will FASEA finally admit the exam is a sham (a competition is probably a better word for it), with the passmark manipulated to produce nice and neat round numbers that make FASEA look good (90% in June, 88% in Sept, 86% in Dec and now 82% in Feb). It has been obvious all along that FASEA were going to do this when they refused to publish a pass mark. Everything FASEA does is designed to make themselves look good. There is no commitment to quality, no effort to assess the impact on consumers or willingness to engage with or seek to understand the profession. FASEA is a laughing stock. It’s a prime example of unethical behaviour. The only place for this failed organisation is on the set of Rob Sitch’s Utopia.
What a relief. Now to do the bridging Ethics subject.
Remote exam bookings? How will that work when its closed book? Whose going to monitor if the candidate has a glass of water on their table during the exam?
This is done via ProctorU where someone watches you via webcam the whole time. Sat the sitting yesterday via this method from home.
How does this work when there’s thousands of people sitting? Is the proctoring one to one, or is it like a security guard “monitoring” 100 cameras at the same time?
they have one to one watching your webcam, you have to hold a mirror up to make sure no one is hiding in the room with you
its open book
The pass percentages are slowly coming down.
that is because the “less sophisticated” advisers are now sitting it
Whilst I passed the exam I stand by my original assessment when leaving the room that it was the worse exam I had sat since leaving high school and that involves two degrees including a Masters. The questions were written by a 10 year old with no idea about financial planning.
Agree
82% of candidates passed. That is nothing to be crowing about Mr Glenfield, It should be 98%
I hope the FASEA directors have read the feedback from the candidates recently and what the authority is doing to Advisers lives?
You’re correct in my view Anon. I am past having accurate words to describe how sickening this fraudulent farce has gone. I am seeing the careers and lives of fellow advisers shattered and this damn virus situation hasn’t helped. Advisers are resilient and could more than likely weather it but this constant contrived and persistent onslaught of academics trying to reshape our industry is simply going to destroy it. They have no concept of client best interest (nor did commissioner Hayne sadly) for if they did they would not be driving trusted advisers from the industry with
nonsensical and heavily flawed ‘exams’. I am beyond disgusted with [b]FARCE-IA[/b][b][/b] et al.