In a statement, FASEA said 1,016 advisers had sat the exam in November, and 80 per cent of those sitting the exam for the first time had passed, a similar first time pass rate to that recorded in October.
The standards authority said 58 per cent of those sitting for the second time had passed, compared to 60 per cent of re-sitters passing in October.
The overall pass rate was 76 per cent, the same as the October session.
“The exam was subject to ACER’s comprehensive marking approach and was set at a consistent standard to prior exams,” FASEA said.
The standards authority said 11,241 advisers had now passed the exam, representing 52 per cent of all advisers on the ASIC register.
“FASEA congratulates successful candidates on completing an important component of their education requirements under the Corporations Act,” the authority’s chief executive Stephen Glenfield said.
“Over 12,573 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.”
The standards authority pointed to the following areas for improvement among advisers who had not passed the November sitting:
Financial advice regulatory and legal requirements
– Assessing whether the adviser has appropriately scoped the advice
– Demonstrating an understanding of the different types of advice (eg. personal advice, general advice and factual information) and how they apply to different client scenarios
– Demonstrating knowledge of the components of key advice documentation that is provided to the client i.e. FSG/SOA
– Demonstrating an understanding of the different types of advice and their legal obligations when considering appropriate financial products.
– Demonstrating the ability to identify breaches of best interest duty and subsequent notification obligations.
Applied ethical and professional reasoning and communication
– Demonstrating an understanding of an adviser’s ethical obligations when advice is not in the client’s best interest
– Demonstrating an understanding of an adviser’s ethical obligations when advising on complex family structures
FASEA said over 1,300 advisers had booked for the January exam session, first of six sittings offered next year.
You are all being conned. This is not a knowledge based exam, it is psychometric, engineered by so called experts in exam setting, you can pass the exam significantly but answer the psycho assessment questions wrongly you will fail. It is a sham, the industry are sheep and until you all wake up and understand this is industry genocide, it will not change. Remember people from all walks of life, very intelligent persons etc are failing, given matters they have dealt with mentally and to discriminate upon those persons is simply an indictment. IFA will not promote my story for one reason? The mental health issues that will concern many who’s livelihoods will be taken from them will be at a significant high.
There is already a risk to the mental health and livelihoods of so many that i cant see an article on this topic by IFA would exacerbate the problem. You’ve been permitted to publish this post. Do you have any more evidence than asserting psycho assessment? I personally would give it fair consideration. I think it is more likely that there isn’t much to your claims hence IFA not publishing. Maybe the intelligent people that failed didn’t study too hard – to be fair, the exam isn’t impossible, but you do have to put some time into it.
This ‘exam’ is the biggest FARCE of all the farces created by FARCE-IA. An exam on ETHICS!?? Have to be kidding! Any smart criminal can pass such and exam. Sadly, due to age and a long time absence from using ‘exam technique’ many older experienced and honest advisers cannot and will not pass. This is a travesty and does not reflect negatively on those older advisers – it reflects on the politically correct pollies and special interest groups forcing such farces. The unfortunate risk advisers who certainly don’t need the full financial planning degrees being forced on them by 2024 will be the first to be pushed from the industry they love and built. Those behind the old FARCE-IA and the govt dills making these requirements should be abjectly ashamed of themselves.
So what you’re saying is that 9 out of 10 of them didnt need to sit the exam because they already satisfied the necessary standards. This whole sledgehammer to crack walnuts approach needs to be addressed – by a professional body – not by bureaucrats.
Unlike some of the more cynical, smug posts on this forum, i suspect older advisers might simply be struggling with formal study and exam conditions – not to be confused with an advisers ethical makeup. Those with sufficient willpower will get there in the end, and i for one wish them well.
It’s a bit worrying that those sitting the exam for a second or subsequent time have a much lower pass rate than those sitting for the first time. Seems to imply some people just don’t get the concepts, regardless of study and practice.
“Over 12,573 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.”
So far these 12,573 advisers have collectively given over $7m to Government to demonstrate we have the skills……..well done Kelly O’Dwyer and Jane Hume you have demonstrated that you have absolutely no idea in how to reduce the burden on small business owners.
Given $7m to prove over 10% haven’t got the skills you mean?
Or given $7m to fast track those that were going to leave anyway with the education standards…..
I am looking for planners and financial advisors I am amazed what licensee are charging people for them to be part of there licensee if you are looking to join another licensee with less fees contact patrick byrne on 0394378405 to have a chat
lol, so if the AFSL is so good why do you prospect here and offer cheap rates, is that because all that is good is cheap? Sounds like you are desperate, makes me wonder how you run your compliance team, assuming you are more than just a one-band show who outsource everything that is.
I hope the advisers you recruit are much better at English and spelling than yourself!
what do you offer beside low fees?
96 % passed the first exam. Numbers are deteriorating.
I would have thought all of the compliance managers and most senior people would have gone first, and so their knowledge is strongest and passing easily achieved. Now it is the “rest”.
Well, we’re now past the half way mark of all current Advisers on the FAR having sat and passed (11,241).
Let’s now see where the Industry settles for total numbers at the end of 2021.
10,000. I predicted this yonks ago.
If you look at the numbers that means about 831 sat the exam for the first time and 185 sat it again (+-3-4 due to rounding as 80% could be anything from 79.5% to 80.49%). About 166 failed their first exam and 77 failed their second or later exam. About 669 passed first time and 106 their second or later, altogether 775.
If this happens every month we would have about 9,000 more advisers passing which means that almost all advisers could actually pass.
Of course that assumes a lot, at least some of it unrealistic, including that advisers randomly choose which month they sit their first exam. I hope all advisers with any hope sit their first exam very soon.
Interesting that those who failed their first exam are a similar number to the participants who sat their second or third exam. Perhaps those who failed twice may not try again?
Typical of Fasea they haven’t told me yet!
HAHA!!!! Imagine dealing with clients life savings and then less than 6 in 10 can pass their second attempt!! RC justified…..
I really don’t understand your logic or connection. Do you post a lot on Twitter by chance ?
FASEA was set up before the RC, nothing to do with it. The FASEA exam is all about bureaucratic regulations, nothing to do with an adviser’s ability to deliver good results for their clients.
this comment would be justified if the things that cam out of the RC were as a result of advisers giving poor advice. As you may recall, most of it was due to the decisions of executives (that have not been held account) to charge fees and provide no service or coming up with dodgy ways to sell meaningless insurance.