On Wednesday, the government released draft exposure regulations of the bill — which will expand the role of ASIC’s existing Financial Services and Credit Panel to operate as the single disciplinary body for financial advisers — which note that the exam fee would increase to $948 (currently $540) while an additional $218 fee would apply for the corporate regulator to “review the marking of one or more answers to the written-style responses (non-multiple-choice questions) in an exam”.
Speaking to ifa, AFA general manager Phil Anderson said that the industry body has been concerned about a potential fee increase.
“We had feared that there would be an increase in the cost of the exam in 2022, as a result of the reduction in the number of advisers who will be sitting it,” Mr Anderson said.
“We are, however, concerned by the scale of this increase from $540 (plus GST) to $948. That is a very significant increase.”
It comes after data released last week found that the number of advisers has dropped below 19,000 to 18,965.
1,668 advisers have left the industry in 2021 alone.
Mr Anderson said that the AFA will continue to encourage advisers to attempt to sit and pass the FASEA exam by the end of the year, with registration still open until November even for those who are unsuccessful in the September exam.
“Passing the exam this year takes away all the uncertainty that will come with relying upon doing the exam next year, and will also save a lot of money compared to what they will pay next year,” he said.
“We trust that advisers will still be able to choose to sit the exam in an exam room next year, rather than everyone being forced to do it remotely.”
Last week, ASIC announced that “existing providers” who are taking a career break by 31 December this year will not be required to pass the FASEA exam by 1 January 2022 to retain their “existing provider” status and, as such, would not be considered new entrants upon their return.
Lucky I am one of the few who in Titanic terms boarded a lifeboat before it sank! This industry is stuffed no thanks to the Liberals who presided over this under their watch.
So FASEA and ASIC forced people to retire and those that haven’t pay the price. nothing like a government body taking responsibility for their actions.
no wonder we have declining adviser numbers.
doesn’t it give you the shits..? they change the rules as they go along. This is not professional. all these things should of been nutted out in the first instance – what a pathetic bunch or morons in the financial advice space – the entire profession, government and all. if your still in it – get out – I did. 3 year plan. i’m making more money than ever before. better ways to make money than financial advice.
Yep, changing the rules detracts from professionalism. First they extended the exam deadline by 12 months. Then they provided yet another extension for those advisers too incompetent to pass the exam by the extended deadline. They never should have changed the rules.
Inflation sure isn’t ‘transitory’, when it comes to the costs for our industry.
Gouging because you can. Completely ethical behaviour from the regulator.
There should never have been an extension in the first place. I manage a base of approx 650 clients and yet, made the time to meet the original extensive time frame to complete my exam. Had all advisers managed to do so, this would not have been an issue.
650 x 2500 per client p.a = $1.625 million, costs and overheads, staff, PD, PI insurance, software, compliance, constant stress dealing with these idiots as above – is it worth it..? if $1000 pa per client – it really cuts thin the profits …then tax as well ….
manage 650 clients….more like a phone list 600 lines long and 50 actual clients.
Let’s be fair. They only had 2 and half years to do it, some people are busy.
How does the cost of marking one exam go up just because fewer are being marked. Surely the exam marking supplier charges per paper marked and if not, what bureaucratic fool negotiated the contract?
It seems that there is only one chance to sit the exam next year for those who got the 9 months extension. Is that true and, if yes, can the practice the full nine months even if they fail during that time?
FASEA will therefore have no problem with me increasing my fees by a similar rate – they are, after all, a highly Ethical organisation, and what’s good for them is good for me.
WHY WHY WHY. They’ve made this exam compulsory and there is no way to justify an increase in price this size. What a joke.
Even at the lower exam fee of $594 (incl GST), if 19,000 advisers sit the exam, then the government has ripped out a total $11,286,000 from small business and directed it to a government bureaucracy.
This federal Liberal government is a disgrace.
Even at the $948 rate, it is still cheap as ASIC is just getting started with the process…just watch that figure go up as time goes by.
I agree. I thought a liberal government would be all for free enterprise. Instead they have failed us