It was confirmed on Tuesday that 1,894 advisers sat the May exam, with 69 per cent of candidates passing.
“FASEA congratulates successful candidates on completing an important component of their education requirements under the Corporations Act,” FASEA chief executive, Stephen Glenfield, said.
“Over 16,700 advisers have sat the exam with 9 in 10 demonstrating they have the skills to apply their knowledge of advice construction, ethics and legal requirements to the practical scenarios tested in the exam.
“In recognition of their achievement, passing candidates who give consent, will have their names added to the successful candidates list on the FASEA website.”
Over 14,850 advisers have passed the exams held to date, while 89 per cent of advisers who have sat the exam have now passed overall.
Meanwhile to date, 1,918 unsuccessful candidates have resat the exam with 65 per cent passing at a resit.
The results come after the Morrison government announced a “one-time, limited extension into next year” for the upcoming July exam for any adviser who has previously failed the FASEA exam twice.
MyIntegrity in Practice principal Joel Ronchi previously encouraged advisers who previously failed the FASEA exam to “have a crack” at seeking a re-mark.
“For advisers who have failed, I talk with them and ask them how they felt they went with the exam,” he said.
“If they say they felt they did okay or even really good and they don’t have the comment on their feedback saying a remark is not warranted, then if it was me, I’d have a crack.”
Mr Ronchi also called on FASEA to clarify whether questions about the incoming compliance changes will be included in the exam.
FASEA responded last month, telling ifa it “does not disclose questions” in any exam.
Working for a long time in an industry does not make someone more suited or more qualified. FASEA has been set as the benchmark and your livelihood depends upon passing.
I have been professional practising adviser for almost 20 years and passed my FASEA exam in early 2020. The only reason I passed IMO I actually read all of the suggested reading material. It is hard rediculous and maybe unnecessary but the only way to pass is to get on with it embrace it and read the suggested reading material. Think of it as a large number of CPD points that you have to attain in one sitting. Good luck to all professional financial advisers in this wonderful country.
There is how we wish the world worked, and how it actually works.
Those who understand that the former has little impact on the latter just got on with it and studied and passed in 2020. Those who are still waiting for the former to change the latter will thankfully be out of our hair by 2022.
…and that attitude is why we increasingly see nonsense policies implemented time and time again.
I’m sitting the exam in July, but will no longer be an adviser. Have decided to have a break after 20 odd years and go into a support and coaching role. Advisers need all the help they can get. It’s hard to believe that after 20 years we’re still pushing out engorged SOAs with mostly useless content to protect ourselves. More paperwork, more justification on every recommendation, more fee disclosure, higher licensee fees, ASIC levies, TASA fees, association membership fees. Could have been all solved many years ago, but too many fingers in the pie.
I am one of those more “Senior” advisers (41 years in business) that did give it a go in June 2020 and failed. The Proctoru system was an absolute FARCE and my exam started 2 hours after the designated starting time. I am sitting the exam again on the 15th July but this time approaching it as a STUDENT not as an ADVISER. All of the study, group classes, webinars and practice exams that I have completed since last year clearly show me that their exam it is not about what I know as an Adviser and I personally do not believe that it was ever intended to be. I hope to pass this time and I wish all my fellow colleagues the best of luck with their exam
Got my exam results in today – I Passed!
if you haven’t already, post it on LinkedIn, everyone else is.
Really?
Why?
You don’t get a mark or anything (Just a pass/fail). If you have passed, it’s on the FASEA register.
This is hardly something I’m proud to want to prag about. It has absolutely no meaning or even understanding for those outside of the industry. It’s a BS off point exam to help justify something was done to sort out the rorting behavior of the large institutions and banks. This has nothing to do with being a good or competent adviser.
Shouldn’t the focus really be on client outcomes? This exam does little to enhance that.
I agree, I passed too. I don’t care to post it. This is something we all have to do. I don’t see lawyers positing when they pass the bar. We do need to move from being the box tickers the govt are asking us to be and create a reputation for the work we do, the care we have for our clients and the outcomes we create for them. FASEA done… now I focus on what is important.
It’s about bloody time! haha
Why should advisers who have been well enough (of good health) throughout the examination period to sit the exam and have failed (twice no less!) be granted an exemption, whereas those (understandably very few) who have been ill throughout the sitting period, are forced to attend and sit the exam, irrespective of their health status, just to meet the requirements?!!! I know who I’d rather be seeking advice from!
What exactly does the FASEA exam have to do with actual advice? It is a compliance exam, designed by Treasury/ASIC/FASEA (not one Adviser I believe) who believe we should all be recommending Industry Super (cheaper, better performance, and safe as houses) rather than what they believe is conflicted advise when recommending retail – my thoughts.
You can always go to Social Media or a call center staff member at an Industry Super and get advice – all conflict free I am told.
Try making that comment to a Life Insurance specialist adviser who has 50 plus years experience with clients needs, the insurance industry and unrivaled knowledge… but has never had to sit a Uni style exam. And to deal with an exam with about 10% relevance to Life Insurance.
I think 10% is being generous. I can only remember 2 or 3 risk related questions in the whole exam
Yeah, and that sickens me Jay. Totally inappropriate for riskies and that’s one of the main reasons I will NOT be sitting it. Whatever this ‘thing’ is into which our industry has devolved it is not a place that I choose to reside any longer. 15 years before time, this little brown bear is toddling off into retirement. Blessing in disguise – at least I’m younger now (60) than the 75 I was planning on being at retirement. Sad about my clients though . . .
I agree wholeheartedly Steve and couldn’t have said it better. When on earth is this type of common sense going to prevail? Obviously, after all the highly experienced quality ‘older’ life advisers are forced out of their once beloved industry (like me). Too sad, illogical and unfair for words.
The fact that people have been practising for 50 plus years without ever having to demonstrate a level of academic competence that correlates with the complexity of providing personal advice is exactly why we need this exam.
If the so called “experienced” planners established a professional bar 30 years ago, then none of us would be in the position we are in today. The low barrier to entry was the seed which grew into industrialised incompetence and led to the burdensome compliance regime we are in today.
Totally agree!
Why? Are you suggesting that someone has been able to survive in this industry for 50 years whilst providing crap advice for clients?
I think you have been buying into the propaganda a little too much.
So DFP 1-8 was nothing?? How about LUATC 1&2 before that??
Years of experience alone do NOT make for an expert. An expert must be continually learning, adapting, growing, taking on new ways and new info and new systems, etc. AN expert in any field from the 90’s would not be an expert now otherwise.
The insurance industry has massively evolved in the last decade with how they do so much. If an ‘expert’ has kept up with all of the changes in legislation, technology, processes, etc – they can do FASEA.
To pass or fail is 100% based on the time and effort put in. EVERYONE gets the result they deserve.
I think everyone is overstating the importance of an exam or academic qualifications. I have both. In my experience and educational studies, I have learnt everything on the job and we have continued to do professional development over time. I think beating up on the older advisors who don’t have a degree which wasn’t required back then is a merit based argument.
Gutted!
They must be running out of questions to ask.
I failed my exam and was told by FASEA that it was unlikely my result would change as a result of a re-mark because the re-mark would be marked in the exact same way as before, had already been marked by two independent expert markers and reviewed and adjudicated by the expert chief marker. I asked for the remark and passed. Just calling yourself an expert marker does not make one an expert marker. No wonder FASEA has been disbanded.
REQUEST A RE-MARK!
Absolutely sickening – so glad to see you passed but their attitude and directions are no less than a true FARCE. Bunch of self absorbed clowns, no more.
What an absolute tragedy ?
Industry experts 20 and 30 year veterans being put to the slaughter by over egotistical politicians who have missed the target in their pseudo royal commission?
60 minutes on Sunday night demonstrated who should be integrity tested and it wasn’t the ‘licensed’ and authorised agent
The politician and the grub who purported to be licensed.
You cannot examine for integrity full stop
Agree totally
Might be getting there. About 1,307 passed in May. If the same number pass in July, September and November we would have 18,500 passing.
The first exam had a 96% pass rate. The May exam 69%. Not heading in the right direction.
An ongoing (and probably increasing) % of those sitting the exam would be re-sits though which have diminishing returns in terms of passing with each consecutive re-sit. I would say this has a significant relationship to the declining pass rate with each session.
If those that passed were to re-sit exams as well, the pass rate would probably be quite high (for obvious reasons).
They have been adding questions along the way so the test has been getting harder and harder the first test was easier than the last one
No, the best and smartest took the gamble with the first test. Myself included.
You know this how?
Because those who spent time studying instead of whining got it done early while the rest spent that time on here complaining.
I’ve spoken to about two dozen planners in the DG and asked them to unpack the questions once they’d sat. The exam is getting more obscure in its questioning. Not header, just more obscure.
Most likely a lot of unprepared advisers ‘giving it a crack’. Likely unprepared on not confident if they have left it this late
There is no point preparing for an exam if you can just get an extension on the already generous 30 months on the basis you have failed twice. The extension is a joke.