Phil Anderson said while the association welcomes the winding down of FASEA at the end of the year, it still has “more work” to do, including a review of the FASEA Code of Ethics.
“It is our view that there is still room for sensible changes to some of the FASEA standards, including better recognition of the prior study,” Mr Anderson said.
When pressed on the matter by senator Rex Patrick, Mr Anderson said advisers are not getting credit for their work.
“The education standard… does not adequately recognise experience for previous study and, in particular, CPD that’s been done by financial advisers,” he explained.
“There’s a lot of longer term financial advisers who are not getting any credit for what they’ve done in the past and required to do eight graduate diploma subjects.
“We have, on many occasions in the past, asked that FASEA look at, again, what the Parliament intended in that explanatory memorandum that went with the bill in 2017 to better recognise previous experience, study and education.”
Mr Anderson noted that AFA are “strong supporters” of the government’s recent “one-time, limited extension” for advisers to complete the FASEA exam, “given the volume and pace of change impacting financial advisers”.
It comes only days after FASEA released its proposed legislative amendment for consultation that will open up the final exam sitting of the year to all advisers.
In a statement, FASEA said it had released the Corporations (Relevant Providers Exam Standard) Determination 2019 Amendment for consultation.
“The draft amendment proposes relief from the 3 month registration requirement for November 2021 exam sitting,” the authority said.
“The relief will allow all candidates who have been unsuccessful at any prior sitting to sit the November exam.”
The May results were also released last week, with 69 per cent of the 1,894 advisers who sat the exam passing.
Make legislation that ruins an industry – dont admit you caused it – roll back all the legislation
Rinse Repeat
does anyone really think FASEA , or ASIC will listen?
It makes no sense that a CFP with many years of experience and hours of annual CPD, not get an exemption to the extra studies
Many advisers that I have spoken to say that the FASEA exam is unfair. The questions are deceptive, ambiguous and misleading. The pass mark at least should be 50% and open book. You don’t in the real world rely on memory. Suppose you are not sure of a particular subject or matter. You undertake the relevant research. Indeed, you are not expected to remember every little detail. All financial advisers have back-office staff and paraplanners that assist with compliance and other back-office functions. The royal commission only focused on financial advisers at large financial institutions. And did not consider the other parts of the industry, where most advisers work in their clients’ best interests.
The minority of the few placed the burden on the majority. Mr Anderson is correct. FASEA has not considered recognising prior learning (RPL) or experience of an adviser who has worked in the finance industry all their careers. FASEA treats advisers with contempt and like children.
In my experience in dealing with FASEA over the years, the staff were not very helpful and arrogant. It took a long time for a response.
If FASEA was so successful, why is it being wound up at the end of this year.
I guess Phil has to pander to the ‘old riskies’ that dominate the AFA membership, but there is no comparison between studying for any qualification and ‘ongoing CPD’ which for most advisers consists of sitting in a room listening to someone talk at them with no checking for understanding, no questions to be answered.
I’d back an experienced adviser over delivering better outcomes for their client, than someone with all the qualifications in the world and only one years worth of experience. Whilst I support improving the base standards and education of new entrants to the industry, it’s ridiculous to ignore the experience of many long term acting advisers.
What most good advisers understand is that the technical education we do is only part of what skills are required to help deliver the best client experience and outcomes.
One really needs to understand the agenda’s at play to understand why all of this crap was introduced in the manner it was and I can assure you it was never about better outcomes for our clients.
Why is this commented being down voted? this is how education should work.
the whole thing is a dogs dinner