In its statement to the Senate economics legislation committee on Thursday, FASEA said it noted “recent media commentary suggesting the exam is not appropriate for specialist advisers and is too difficult for them to pass”.
The comments come following criticism from the Stockbrokers and Financial Advisers Association in March that some sittings of the exam have been too narrowly focused on specialist areas such as insurance, reflecting a failure to recognise the multidisciplinary nature of the industry.
“Consistent with the requirements of the Corporations Act, the exam is set as a core competency test applicable to advisers in their role as a relevant provider and is not a specialist exam,” the standards authority told the committee.
“The current exam pass rate of 89 per cent overall demonstrates the exam is achievable for relevant providers regardless of their advice specialty.”
FASEA said a total of 1,437 advisers had been unsuccessful when sitting the exam, and 882 of those had come back for a second try.
Of those who had resat the exam, 578 advisers, or around 66 per cent, had subsequently passed, the standards authority said.
However, data retained by FASEA around the advisers’ employment did not indicate that more specialist practitioners had the deck stacked against them when it came to passing the exam.
“Analysis of the composition of the 1,437 who have been unsuccessful in passing the exam to date does not demonstrate a disadvantage between generalist financial planners and specialist financial advisers, with a split of approximately 60/40 per cent respectively composing those who had failed,” the standards authority said.
Thanks for the amazing insight John.
The trouble is that MANY advisers, including specialist risk advisers, who have not passed this “ethics exam” (an oxymoron if ever there was one!) are older advisers. Older advisers who perhaps because of time since their last exam are unable to cope with study or specific exam conditions find it difficult if not impossible to re-adapt to exam conditions. These advisers, after 30 or 40 years, may NOT desire to exit yet as they love their work, their clients and just ‘working’. They have clients that will miss their advisers, clients that receive care, attention and loyalty from their decades-long relationship with their trusted adviser. Not only will they lose access to trusted valuable advice (not paying a fee to their risk adviser thanks to renewal commissions) but this irreplaceable experience will be lost when the adviser is forced to exit this year.
With him/her will go any chance of that experience being passed on to the new advisers coming through. All this because the academics, who have never left school, want to be seen to be doing ‘something’ to keep themselves relevant. They care NOT for client best interest, these UNQUALIFIED politicians and academics. They’ve never sat with a client to hear their needs – they have no comprehension of what it is like in the field and they are completely stuffing our once great industry up because of their ignorance. I call for a STOP to this irrelevant exam process. IF an exam is needed then make it relevant to the specialist – RISK, STOCK BROKING, REALESTATE, FINANCIAL PLANNER/Investment adviser. They are all separate disciplines with seperate knowledge bases. What can’t politicians/FARCE-IA, ASIC et al understand about this for God sake?!
These entities are decimating numerous industries. Forget the level 8 degree for risk advisers too and make a relevant/specific exam. There will be a heavy client / social price to pay if experienced risk advisers desert their industry.
Snooze. Get on with being a profession not just a mate to your older clients
The truest statement I’ve seen on here!
not a very professional or ethical response from you there…
Stephen, I do believe you have been taking training on how to NOT answer tricky questions. The Jan 31 exam contained 3 RISK questions out of 75. I am not licenced to advise on anything else, so why should I be examined on them,
I am, or was, a risk specialist
I still don’t understand how you can be licensed to only provide risk advice, surely with the intermingling of insurance advice in super as well as the taxation implications on claims you need to be licensed in those areas?
There may have only been 3 questions out of 75 on risk but there were not anymore on other areas?
In fairness, of the limited questions actually on financial planning, they were basic enough that I would expect anyone (stockbroker, risk specialist) to know the answers.
Its was all the questions on ‘ethics’, the FASEA code and irrelevant information buried 500 pages into the corps act that were so horribly worded you didn’t know what they were asking.
Not unfair says FASEA…..
FARCE-IA.
Its is beyond unfair in many ways.What about 60 plus year old advisers with computer skills normally left to staff etc etc etc etc etc etc etc!!!!!!!!!
Shouldn’t you have learned how to type at least 20 years ago? How do you keep yourself informed?
How are you able to respond on this forum but not complete an exam on a computer?
It makes sense what ASIC says. Advice is a responsibility and you should know your stuff.
Does anyone else find it disturbing that the FASEA National Exam Manager appears to have NEVER been a relevant provider or provided a single individual with retail advice, yet is responsible for assessing and adjudicating the entire profession?
‘disturbing’? Gee, that’s an understatement.
I passed the exam, but I think that if I had not been self-licensed I would have found it much harder. FASEA expects advisers to be able to think like licensees. Is this the preparation for licensed advisers rather than authorised reps?
They are wrong and it is unfair
If you don’t understand the corporations law and any pass the FASEA exam you shouldn’t be providing personal advice everyone at my firm has passed it.
Dodgy stockbrokers who don’t understand the law shouldn’t be providing advice
Are you serious “Anonymous”?
Do you expect ordinary risk advisers for example to fully understand the Corporations Act 2001 with 1,681 sections dealing with a raft of corporate law which more than keeps a full time corporate lawyer busy keeping up with it all?
I don’t think you have made a realistic statement there.
You know what, I didn’t know the corps act inside out, so you know what I did? I studied for it, yes it was hard but I passed. This is on top of running a busy practice and coaching kids sports most days. Stop complaining and just get it done
Blood hell, nail on the head Anon!!!!!!!!!
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. In the year that 40000 complaints were received from the Financial advisory industry there were 40 from the Stockbroking industry. The brokers provide a different service to you and know more about individual companies and therefor products than you. So I would respectfully suggest that you change your tone about so called dodgy stockbrokers. The legislative nightmare that the industry finds itself in was definitely not caused by Stockbrokers , and making comments as you have simply don’t help anyone.
Could you please share the link to the data showing 40000 complaints about financial advice in one year?
I think you may have just made that one up? Or have you misinterpreted the data in regards to the whole financial services sector?
Not like a stockbroker to make stuff up !
I bet you in most cases for stock brokers the complaints never made it to FOS/AFCA because they pay the client out before it gets there. More Financial Planning advice make it to the complaints and are on record because the planner/licensee believe they took the right steps.
Your comment sounds like a classic pump and dump! You know all about those dont you Mr Stockbroker.