Approximately 2 per cent of practicing advisers, more than 570 participants, sat the exam in June. Advisers are now required to pass the test set by the ethics authority before 2021.
Australian Council for Education Research (ACER) is the provider for the exam and it graded the papers using its marking approach. The tests were marked to credit standard, with the pass varying with each exam that was held across nine centres in June.
A number of proud advisers posted their pass outcomes across LinkedIn yesterday. David Graham, senior financial planner at Story Wealth Management, was one of them.
Reflecting on the exam, he has said the guidance and material was broad, making it difficult to prepare for.
“As the reading material, they’re basically giving you volumes four and five of the Corporations Act to read now. That runs to 2,000 pages, and a lot of it is not specific to financial planning, so it’s irrelevant,” Mr Graham said.
“In that regard, it was a little bit courageous, doing the exam at the first sitting without any real knowledge about what it was going to be about.”
FASEA chief executive Stephen Glenfield said FASEA was pleased with the implementation and unsuccessful candidates were able to resit the exam.
“FASEA is pleased with the implementation of the first exam and congratulates successful candidates on completing an important component of their education requirements under the Corporations Act,” Mr Glenfield said.
“Unsuccessful candidates are able to resit the exam and these advisers will receive guidance on which knowledge areas they need to improve to enhance their ability at a future sitting.”
Registrations are now open for the September exam sittings across 15 locations, as well as the December exam hosted in 18 centres, with more than 1,000 enrolled already.
Mr Graham noted the final exam is being rolled out in December 2020, with the result coming out after the 2021 deadline. The time frame to do the exam, originally planned to be two years, has effectively been withered down to 18 months, he said.
“The last session in December next year is really kind of irrelevant now, it shrinks the window down to a little more than a year,” he said.
“And given that we got the results yesterday, months after the exam, you only really get the chance to do it once every six months.
“I reckon that at best, people have three chances to sit it, over that effectively 18-month period. It is probably not what was originally intended or expected.”
I bet the mob involved in running the exam are upset they don’t get a second hit of $600 for those advisers to resit with such a high pass rate. $594x$25,000=Nearly $15mil. They should still do ok. Jobs for mates for sure!
Why did some advisers, with a score in the low 60s pass? Was the pass mark revised down to 60? Or was the mark a raw score (ie. not a percentage). And why have the scores disappeared from the portal? Was it a mistake? What happened with FASEA separately marking 3 separate modules, each of which we were supposed to pass separately? Was that dropped in favour of one overall pass mark? Everything FASEA touches seems to be unworkable and poorly thought out. What a debacle. And we still haven’t been given the additional guidance promised regarding the Code of Ethics, with only 20 weeks left until implementation. The Code could massively disrupt businesses depending on how it is interpreted, with hardly any time left to make the changes which may be required. This is a debacle
I passed with only 2 days of study. I think it is entirely achievable for 99% of advisers to pass after 1 to 3 attempts. This does not look like the cataclysmic event the industry has been fearing.
yeah look, it should be a one sit scenario. If you fail, you are booted from the industry for 5 years. Then get your grad dip. and re-sit after 5yrs.
Morals, ethics and exorbitant fees are the only issues. Stephen, you forgot the insto’s, regulators and successive governments.
[quote=Anonymous ]I’m one if the persons who failed the exam and can only resist it in December which is a 6 month wait not 4 as per FASEA advised as the system doesn’t allow you to reenrol for the September exams. I can honestly say that for those who haven’t sat exams recently (I last sat an exam in 2001)”
Well done for giving it a go and I’m sure you will get it next time but I agree with you – the last time I sat a three hour exam was some time ago and this is unfair for many who may be under incredible stress already for various reasons and not reflective to whether they are honest or able.
Why don’t we insist on our insto execs, FSC, FPA and AFA board members and a few ASIC seniors do the exam and compare the pass rates?
What a scam this is.
The only ones that failed probably don’t handle extremely stressful situations well and considering that livelihoods and careers are on the line – I’d consider that ‘extremely stressful’. Hence this whole exam and lack of knowledge is utter BS considering the pass mark. AND, remember, the date of the exam meant many of us couldnt write as we were making sure our clients super contributions were getting in in time!
I can’t say I’m surprised that some people here are trying to make a big deal about the 10% that failed. This is a relatively low number and they may have received 55% or 60% as their mark, but fell just short of the undefined ‘credit level. Please give them a break!
What an absolute sham, what a scam. This is proof the industry was fine.
Education is a distant problem in this industry.
Morals, ethics and exorbitant fees are the only issues.
Wow. 10% of the smart ones who thought they would sit and pass the exam failed. The only people I knew of that did the first exam were either very smart or have done some serious study so they didn’t embarrass themselves.
Wait till the average adviser does the exam. Sounds like it will require some serious study unless you are one of the smarter people in the industry. I will certainly be doing a lot of study.
This is one way of culling advisers. The other one is fast approaching on 1st Jan 2024.
90% is great – well done to them.
But also very interesting that somewhere around 50 advisers – who were obviously very keen or very confident and therefore signed up for the first exam – failed.
So what is the credit standard?
I’m one if the persons who failed the exam and can only resist it in December which is a 6 month wait not 4 as per FASEA advised as the system doesn’t allow you to reenrol for the September exams. I can honestly say that for those who haven’t sat exams recently (I last sat an exam in 2001) it is difficult due to the way the questions are structured as I’m not use to exam conditions so I strongly recommend for those that are old school, you either do the BT or Kaplan pre exam to get you use to it. I don’t handle exams well at the best of times but I guess I have a further 3 resits including this one to get it right. I’ll get there in the end but the stress of all of this can be unbearable at times whilst also trying to run a business. Congrats to all those that passed!
so 1 in 10 are duds, what a joke this whole process is
So what is the point in the exam ?
*** Newsflash*** 100% of these advisers should not of needed to sit this exam but did thanks to the stealthy, unethical behaviour of the FPA.
That leaves 57 people feeling like crap.