In correspondence seen by ifa, Sydney adviser Hilton Woolf wrote to Liberal MP Craig Kelly earlier this month following two failed attempts at the FASEA exam. Mr Woolf said he had been given “no feedback regarding how I could improve in order to pass”, and had already passed the bridging course required to meet his education pathway.
“I am enormously distressed to find myself in a position where I might need to abandon a career that I have devoted my life to as I am unable to re-qualify,” Mr Woolf said.
The comments follow previous ifa reporting on the rising number of queries licensees and training providers are fielding around the lack of feedback provided by FASEA during the exam process.
Mr Woolf, who had been a financial planner for 35 years and suffered from a number of medical issues, said the government needed to “consider the impact and ramifications of imposing this exam on all members of the industry”.
“I fully understand the need to always improve standards, particularly given the scandals that emerged in the industry. However, for younger professionals, the FASEA exam is not as challenging as it is for someone my age and with my health challenges,” Mr Woolf said.
“There needs to be regard for individual circumstances including track record, number of years of ongoing compliance, initial academic qualifications and a range of other factors.”
In response, Mr Kelly said he agreed with Mr Woolf “100 per cent” and that “many of my colleagues feel the same”.
“We will be pressuring for change of this absurd policy,” Mr Kelly said.
FASEA came under fire around its handling of the exam and implementation of industry standards more broadly at a recent hearing of the House standing committee on economics, of which Mr Kelly is a member.
FASEA chief executive Stephen Glenfield told the committee around 400 advisers so far had had to re-sit the exam.
“What you see with those [re-sits] is their marks do increase, so [the advisers] have been doing the work to lift their standards,” Mr Glenfield said.
“It’s an inevitable part of this exam that not everybody is going to be at the level required, so the exam is doing its job to identify those people.”
Committee chair Tim Wilson suggested FASEA be obligated to attend regular oversight hearings as ASIC is obliged to do, to ensure proper scrutiny of the authority’s activities.
In response to ifa queries, Mr Kelly said progress had yet to be made on that score, but expressed his frustration at the lack of recognition provided to experienced practitioners under the FASEA regime.
“If the world’s most successful investor over decades, Warren Buffett, at the age of 89 wanted to give financial advice in Australia, we’d force him to do an exam and then force him to go off and do university courses,” Mr Kelly said.
Liberals enact this FASEA joke then can it…!
Please punch me in the head one more time. That feels better. Back to work.
How can an opaque system such is the FASEA exam continue. There is no transparency. No integrity at all. The funders of which are the very organisations mentioned in the Royal Commission. It is these entities that gave rise to the fiasco we now see, yet the CEO’s of these same entities were never compelled to pay back their bonuses obtained under deception. They simply march on to commit further mayhem elsewhere. No checks, no exams, no clawbacks. Nothing.
Government have created a nightmare designed to cull adviser numbers, pure and simple. The FASEA standards ought be applied across the board for the benefit of consumers. Its not. An adviser will need to wade through a lengthy fact find, risk profile, and more. An industry fund will use a 2 to 3 page fatc find, pay no attention to the wider circumstances of the consumer and do so under the term general advice. What utter nonsense this is.
As to the associations, I really cannot understand why anyone would seek to support the AFA, FPA as they have been conflicted and not represented the adviser at any level worthy of value. Simply self serving fools who have let your industry down severely. If you pay their fees, I suggest these are fees for NO service.
I fail to understand why my profession of law is allowed to charge up to 30 percent of a disability settlement or trustee companies charge 4 percent of a deceased estate plus commissions and fees at every level. Is this ethical? I suggest no. The legal profession ought not be allowed to do this to anyone.
Advisers are worthy of being called professionals. If you put your clients interest before your own and maintain and enhance your qualifications and knowledge. You are a professional.
Academics, politicians and a few failed lawyers seeking validation for their existence as they couldn’t run a private practice armed with no understanding of reality and have only theories to guide them are fooling all if they believe a mere exam or an ethics subject will solve the problem among a few. It simply will not. Their actions are filled with bias and such entrenched bias leads to disaster for not just the adviser but ultimately, the consumer.
your comment is appreciated
Honest question Hilton, why do you think you should be allowed to run an AFSL if you cant pass this exam?
attacking jane hume wont help, her staff probably reads these – and then thinks. “why should i help them”.?
attacking the fpa and the afa in public wont help either.
Ministerial staff usually lose their jobs when their boss does. Hume’s staff should be frantically bringing FASEA’s problems to her attention because her “smile sweetly and do nothing” approach to everything must have her and her staff on the verge of being sacked by now. Backbenchers Wilson, Bragg & Falinski have all shown in recent parliamentary performances that they are better suited than Hume to the role of Financial Services Minister.
Interestingly in an FPA webinar with Labor Shadow Minister Stephen Jones yesterday, he pretty much said that while he agreed with FASEA’s broad principles, implementation has clearly been mismanaged, and the Minister has been derelict in her duty by not intervening to sort out the mess.
Please dont wish Wilson Bragg or Falinski onto us….
How could they possibly be worse than Hume?
I refuse to sit the FASEA Exam or if change my mind and I do I certainly won’t lose sleep studying for it.
The content and study material is a dog’s breakfast.
And I can tolerate study. I am CFP qualified (5 modules incl Ethics), have a Master’s degree in a non-related profession, and have already managed a career transition once over 15 years ago. Time to do it again. If I’ve got to go through the pain, it’s got to be worth the gain.
As far as I see it, the whole FASEA thing is a sham. It is also logically inconsistent. Consider that the Royal Commission refused to touch vertical integration. So intra-fund advice is okay, but advisers with Corporate Super books are not. WTF.
Bugger the rules – it’s Animal Farm all over again. Some are more equal than others.
The weight of adjustment has been put on the sector that has the weakest lobbying (the SME-based FPs represented by the inept FPA and AFA). The sectors that have the strongest lobbying live on another day.
As the saying goes the “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must”. (Weak being a relative term of course, when one considers the struggles many Australians face under Covid-19)
Bye
yes i left too. many CEO’s at AFSL’s should not be in the chair at all.
FASEA know about ethics?
Ask any one of them to explain ethics or it’s roots or theory and you have your answer
How can you build an exam when the people writing the questions are clueless
Yes how about asking Jane Hume if she realises the magnitude of their incompetence
Sorry they have to go now
I’ll just be the bastard here but at least I’ll put my name to it.. can’t pass after two tries? Time to leave the industry. The whole point of increasing education standards is to raise standards. Craig Kelly us just picking this up because attacking intellectuals is his dog whistle.
That’s nasty, insensitive and unprofessional Michael. Anyone who has sat the exam knows a large portion of the questions are ambiguous and designed to catch you out. Who even writes an exam where if you get one true/false question correct out of two, you get zero marks? And they refuse to publish the pass mark or publish the questions and answers from past exams. The secrecy and lack of accountability is alarming for an exam where people’s livelihoods depend on it. A good friend of mine failed. He’s a ripper adviser. He knows his stuff. He has more degrees than you and I put together. Has lectured at university, and you wouldn’t meet a more honest and ethical person. He’s at the older end of the spectrum and I think he was a bit stressed and got a bit flustered with the technology. Let’s not kid ourselves, FASEA has not lived up to expectations. The unworkable Code of Ethics is a monumental failure and FASEA’s refusal to properly consult with practicing advisers and investigate the impact of their policies has been hugely disappointing. I had high hopes for FASEA but they were dashed long ago. Intervention from the minister is required urgently. We need a majority of practicing, experienced and well qualified advisers on the board. It’s the only way forward to save our profession.
Does your ‘friend’ not use a computer, tablet or phone in the conduct of attaining all these degrees, lecturing at uni, or providing that ripping advice? Either you know your stuff or you dont. There’s any number of practice exams that can be done, along with sample questions from FASEA themselves. How much hand holding do people need? If there’s a limited question set to be used, then publishing previous exam papers undermines the validity of the testing.
There are people with advice experience on the Board of FASEA. If you’re upset about the composition, go talk to Craig Kelly or anyone else in this Govt, as they were the ones who mandated that the Board needed to come from academia, consumer groups, regulatory, ethicist AND advice backgrounds.
I now charge half as many clients double the fees I used to, for the exact same advice outcomes as before, with clients worse off due to the higher fees and non-clients worse off for not being able to afford advice at all…
Well done Government and all the other wankas in the ivory tower trying to ‘help the poor consumer’. You’ve screwed them, not helped them. I’m okay, I’ll adapt and thrive, but the few thousand people I now wont have capacity to help over my career will be less financially independent as a result. Way to go…
i started another business up with a young fella about 2 years ago. with my background in accounting and taxation, and business, i gave this FP “industry” the flick. i have mad more money in this new business in 2 years than the amount of money i made in 10 years doing FP – and with less lots of less overheads. So i’m out.
I feel sorry for people that have no other choice but too soldier on.
Not to take away from anyone going it hard, they deserve our sympathy. But if I can be in financial services for 31 years, run an AFSL, hold down 300 face to face appointments in the same year I passed my FASEA exam first time, completed the 6 topics I needed for the upgrade of my Dip FP to Grad Dip including the Bridging Topic at age 58, believe me so can all of you. I do not have a previous academic background either. Let’s get on with reality.
You clearly didn’t pay attention to your ethics course if your argument is ‘I did it so you should too’.
Same here age 60 plus working on a separate, unrelated degree. It is quite possible.
Good on you.
I have an ethics question. If I was a member of an industry association (let’s call them the FPB) and that body agreed with a firm (let’s call them CBB) that was accused of providing poor advice, that in order to avoid fines they say it’s not CBB it’s nasty individual planners and all planners need a degree. And that other body (FPB) kept silent in return for $60,000 and compulsory membership….would I have the right to complain here? Furthermore, if I was a member of FPB and the FPB set up a body called FPED to approve Uni degrees and that body recommend a Financial Planning Degree approved by FPED as the min standard, do I still have the right to complain here? Further if I was a member of FPB and the Royal Commissioner told FPB they were incapable of self regulating and as a consequence individuals like Mr Woolfe become a victim, do I still have the right to complain here?….or Do I only have myself to blame. 800 words worth 20%.
is that an ethical consquentalism..?
I agree. This has become a joke. I can see the challengers of elderly experienced financial planners being disadvantaged by doing exams online with time restrictions. They are not as computer savvy and may read a lot slower. We could have “worked shopped” this FASEA requirement across the line instead and let the AFQF7 courses planners are required to complete be the education needed to continue. The issue here really isn’t the exam anyway. It’s the fact that if FP’s don’t pass by Jan 2022 we are finished with our profession. That shouldn’t be allowed to happen. It’s a threat.
Our industry associations (FPA, AFA etc) and Licencees should have fought for this not to happen. So gutless. A professional planner with the experience Hilton Woolf has couldn’t survive in the game if he wasn’t providing appropriate advice with a good compliance record so why should his career be threatened because of one exam? We should be fighting for planners like him to stay in the industry not killing them off.
FASEA please look inside yourselves and really ask the question of what you are trying to achieve here.
but you’re the problem in that you renewed those membership fees….. You said Yes that’s ok. In effect when you paid so memberships fees you just kicked Mr Woolfe in the crouch and added to his misery. You accepted a lack of self regulation, you accepted a lack of self representation, you belonged to a conflicted organization that received payments from insto’s and ultimately the Government stepped in and set the boundaries. Organizations like the FPA exist to prevent Government intervention, why do support them. So I’m pretty sure it’s FPA scum bags that going forward will continue to drag us down. You most likely did it all for three little letters, C.F.P now worth ZIP. Stop complaining or do something about it. End of story.
My FPA membership finally lapsed this year. Any organisation that supports the intrafund racket & refuses to fight to get rid of Opt In, is next to useless. By remaining in the FPA, you are paying fees for no service.
why would Warren Buffett even want to be a financial adviser? Does he need to? He can do it via AGMs, books, podcasts, etc. People will listen/read without him changing his job title
Yes but an investment adviser is quite different to a financial planner. I certainly would get investment advice off him but I would not get Social Security, Estate, cashflow, superannuation planning, insurance advice off him. FASEA exam is not testing investment advice. It’s a test on Privacy, the code of conduct, legislation.
Agreed, but all the more as to why we should not be at risk of our professional career ending if we don’t pass this one exam. It’s not designed to test our knowledge on advising, so it should have been handled so much better without the threat of ending careers.
I wonder what would happen to Real Estate Agents, Family Lawyers and Politicians if they all had to sit an ethics exam followed by a 2-year, $20,000 Post Graduate Degree in their respective field? All those industries would completely implode and be non-existent within 2-3 years!
Martin – its not a 20k degree – its 8 units @ 3.4k each – plus the opportunity cost of having to employ someone for a year whilst you completed the 8 units ( if you compressed it all into twelve months – to be fair its closer to 200k.
You only have to do 8 units if you currently have the barest minimum in quals to be a planner….that you probably did in an 2 week accelerated program…
It is 6 units if you have an advanced diploma, 4 units if you have another degree and are an SMSF specialist. There was at least one special at $1,800 a unit, i.e. $7,200 to $10,800 only. Why on earth would I employ somebody while studying part time on the side?
Family lawyers do a degree and operate to a code of ethics that has been in existence for more than 6 months….do agree with including politicians who have no ethics and generally no formal training in the portfolios they hold
While psychologists’ and studies have challenged theories suggesting that 10,000 hours of practice isn’t a guarantee for success, this basic premise remains the same: “THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR EXPERIENCE”
Yes so true. But consumer expectations have changed and a line needed to be drawn in the sand. As an industry we could have worked collectively to drawn that line under our own terms, but we didn’t. Blame the conflicted FPA or blame the adviser that was too lazy to do even a basic course in order to lift standards. As a result the Government stepped in and drew the line for us and Mr Woolf is a victim of his peers UN-professionalism. He can blame himself also for paying membership fees to a body like the FPA for years.
What consumers? I have yet to see evidence of one consumer laying out their expectations of the industry. It is always regulators & lawyers who seem to have a direct line to the consumers expectations apparently.
You’ve got to be kidding. I suggest you go onto any social media channel and ask.. I’m thinking of seeing a Financial Planner and see how you go.
What customers are you talking about?
You guys must have been asleep during the Royal Commission. You know the part that states “that behaviour no longer meets community expectations” but hey I’m not the one being FASEA’d out of existence here.
Mr Woolf is an exception…. and not the norm. Hence special consideration, extended time, or something else (for example most Universities have processes in place for visually impaired students) are warranted. Advisers that try and equate Mr Woolf circumstances to there own, and say it’s a joke should be ashamed. An excuse such as ” I wanted to learn a foreign language,,or I wanted to spend the time with my family, and I was juggling work life, or even, I was too busy at work” are not grounds. Professionals make sacrifices and put their industry ahead, at times, of their own circumstances. A visually impaired individual with a medical condition Yes, saying I want more time because I’m busy and I’m learning Spanish and so was too busy to do any further Education ever or do an exam is not a reason.
It’s funny that Craig Kelly is the only member of that committee who doesn’t have a degree so he is obviously very biased.
Most advisers were claiming that their experience provided them with so much knowledge well if that was true why can’t this person with 35 years pass an exam on the core requirements of our industry.
It’s such a bullshit argument that it is easier for younger advisers to pass it, I have health issues, I have a young family to take care of, I have a business and employees to manage if anything it’s harder for younger people at least someone that age wouldn’t have young children anymore to take care of their kids would be older an independent.
If this person is really claiming he is too old to pass an exam than he would also be too old to keep up with CPD study and to do proper research for his clients and therefore shouldn’t be advising but that’s always the tactic used by these types of advisors whinge and complain about anything and make an exception for me but not for anyone else, everyone is going through a tough time your situation is not unique but I have gotten on with it passed the exam and am completing my bridging units
I don’t agree that we should have some advisors sit the exam and allow others not too but I agree feedback should be given so you can focus your study on those areas in which you failed that is just logical
Mr Woolf also runs his own AFSL. If anybody should be able to pass this exam with flying colours first go through, it should be someone who runs their own AFSL…just saying…
Very good points by Anonymous ‘It’s funny…’
I concur special consideration is extremely hard to obtain
why should there be special consideration?
The problem is it can’t be changed now that so many of us have paid for, studied hard, lost sleep over it, sat the exam and passed. It would be a kick in the guts if it were all for nothing. This should have been addressed much much earlier!
they were too dumb to see it.
I’ve paid for, sat and passed the exam and would be entirely okay with a decision to scrap it tomorrow and spare my peers who are yet to sit it from its burden.
The question is, why haven’t so many of our peers sat it yet? Waiting is a risky move and crossing one’s fingers isn’t going to change that.
Craig Kelly is a man of uncommon common sense.
Kelly’s opinions as a former furniture salesman really hold a lot of weight…
as does yours chicken liver
Suggest we don’t get to critical or personal in this matter. If Craig can bring some sanity to this debacle we should be supportive.
That’s the first time that someone has used the word sanity and Craig Kelly in the same sentence….
FARSEA = Over Bloody Complicated O’Dwyer at her absolute worst.
LNP you made this mess and you need to fix this mess ASAP !!!!!!!!!!!!
LNP you also stole adviser property with theft of Grandfathered Comms – that were disappearing naturally anyhow.
LNP you made IFA’s the most restricted term possible, s923A is a freaking joke that must be changed.
LNP you continue to allow Conflicted, Vertically Integrated, Industry Fund Advice / Sales to be charged to All Industry Fund Members yet less than 10% of these Industry Fund Members use the Advice = Fees for No Service.
LNP has continued to Strangle the Life out of Real Financial Advisers with ever increasing BS REGS.
LNP wake the hell up and start fixing this mess !!!!!!!!!!!!!
The LNP folded up their tents and moved on from supporting what is their natural support base a long time ago. They see no votes in defending financial planners who the majority of people see as parasites. We should consider this next time we go to vote. Not that Labor is any better, but at least they dont pay lip service to planners and then stab them in the back saying “This is my planner and I’m ambitious for him….”
The FASEA process and its opaqueness is nothing short of a disgrace. It is designed to reduce advice numbers rather than provide a practical framework worthy of consumer confidence. That associations such as AFA FPA AIOFP did next to nothing from outset is worthy of their member fees NOT been renewed. As I understand the FASEA exam provides no confidence as would a AFQF7 or above qualification. ASIC allowing tax agents to provide limited advice on super during the COVID initiatives is demonstrative of stupidity from a regulator. And an incompetant one at that.
The exam and AQF7 quals are completely different parts of the process. The exam was meant to be testing but not onerous, which is proven by the pass rate in the high 85% – 92% range. Mr Woolf, who runs his own AFSL & by default should know this stuff backwards, has just outted himself as someone who should not be running his own AFSL. If I was him, I’d be expecting a call from ASIC….
This is logical and hard to disagree with.
anonymous give us your name! Hilton Woolf
It seems to me that the train has already left the station. We’re dealing with the reality of the situation we’re in, all this is much to late to change anything.
Yes the FASEA people need to get their act together or else why have it at all. Can be abolished and nothing much would change apart from the usual Industry super fund critics of advice
nicely said but too late
After failing twice, perhaps Mr Woolf should just give it away…
Nice comment anonymous. Love your compassion.
I keep putting a name in and it keeps spitting out as anonymous, just like it has obviously done with your comment. If they say there is no substitute for experience then Mr Woolf should have aced the exam first time. Instead he’s failed twice. In addition to that 35 yrs of experience he runs his own AFSL which I would expect to come with a higher degree of knowledge of the legislative environment that we operate under. There comes a time when it’s unsafe for our seniors to drive, perhaps the same can be said for running an AFSL / planning business.
Good points and I can’t put in my name either, says I am posting as ‘….’ (my name) but always comes out anonymous. Also can’t up or downvote people most of the time.
It might also be handy to remind Mr Kelly that it was his government that brought in this legislation that requires existing advisers to upskill and new advisers (like Buffet) to jump through the relevant hoops. This is no different to people who are engineers, doctors, nurses oversees not having their qualifications recognised here.
Why aren’t doctors , lawyers, dentists, make up artists, real estate agents , all doing ethics exams
And the most important group of all……politicians. Don’t need a degree, any qualification or any ethics training whatsoever and entrusted to make critical financial, social and often life changing decisions for the electorate.
Horse has bolted – Kelly O’Dwyer’s lasting legacy – LNP are supposed to cut red tape for business instead they had to virtue signal by wasting everyone’s time
Was Mr Kelly (MP) sleeping at the wheel when he assisted in passing the legislation?
Absolutely – we were abandoned by the politicians and the FPA /AFA . They were too scared to say anything then. So we have had to suck it up and finish the all the studies and exams. It will be very upsetting to have 2 tiered process. One for those who could pass the exam and one for those who can’t .
I assume Craig Kelly is his local member, which would be the only reason you would appeal to the dumbest member in this government
Are perhaps all these compliance measures degrading the quality and availability of financial advice in Australia? Is FASEA and ASIC cutting off the proverbial nose to spite the face of financial advice?
Craig Kelly and Tim Wilson are part of the Government that introduced FASEA.