During Senate estimates on Thursday, senator Susan McDonald questioned the corporate regulator around the recently-passed Better Advice Bill, which will see FASEA wound up and responsibilities passed to ASIC and potential plans in place for the transition.
“I couldn’t tell you right now… we are putting a lot of work into getting ready to assume our new role, or expanded role, in the beginning of January,” chair Joe Longo said.
ASIC commissioner Danielle Press added that a reveal is “imminent”.
“We are working with [Australian Council for Education Research] ACER to get a new contract in place and until that contract is in place we won’t be able to to tell you what the dates are going to be,” Ms Press said.
“We do know that it’s important for advisers to have those dates and we will be putting them out as soon as we can.”
The comments come after the release of the September exam results, which saw a pass rate of 61 per cent.
Soon after it was revealed that only 76 per cent of active advisers on ASIC’s Financial Adviser Register have passed the FASEA exam to date.
Following the passing of the Better Advice Bill, the Association of Independently Owned Financial Professionals (AIOFP) executive director Peter Johnston told ifa that ASIC must also “immediately” address the FASEA education pathway, which is “unclear, confusing and to some institutions, discriminatory”.
“We can’t have advisers spending money and time on courses that don’t qualify, we need clarity as a matter of urgency,” he said.
However, confirmation by the government that the FASEA exam cut-off date has been extended to 30 September 2022 for advisers who have attempted the exam twice prior to 1 January 2022 was applauded by the Association of Financial Advisers’ (AFA).
“Greater certainty on the exam extension is important for those advisers who are awaiting the results of the September exam, and others who are preparing for what was to be the final exam in November,” AFA general manager, policy and professionalism, Phil Anderson said.
Whaaat??.,./an ever changing end date?
Come on, somebody grow a pair & put an end to this farce.
Haha! They tried to put an end to the industry as you say . . . with FARCE-IA, and look what happened – it ended the industry as we know it (i.e. fun to be in!) and many good experienced advisers too. Be careful what you wish for as you may just get it!
Why is the FASEA exam cut-off being extended to September 2022? A long standing argument regarding the validity of CFP was that the academic level and requirements to pass varied greatly over the years. Giving some advisers another nine months undermines the exam process.
Does it (undermine the exam process) though????
Same exam process with a different calendar date. Remembering that those that still haven’t passed can’t give advice or receive income from 1 January.
Furthermore I get it that you had to study hard … I hope that those that haven’t passed are also doing the same.
With respect to the exam – how is this the same as the CFP designation argument? The CFP included those ‘gifted’ the designation for years of service, those that did the 6 and 8 units of DFP and then those that have done the CFP program etc.
All in all, I cannot for the life of me understand why people are getting their kickers in a knot about passing the exam and moaning about others that are getting the chance albeit with an extension.
I get that I might be missing something here, so please feel free to enlighten me, as i cant see how it changes your/my world by giving people more of a chance to pass?
The more delays there are in getting all advisers trained and assessed to a “professional” standard, the more delays there will be in unshackling advisers from an oppressive regulatory regime.
We can all argue until blue in the face about whether those “professional” standards are right or wrong, but it is a moot point. Being treated like a profession means meeting the regulators’ definition of a profession. The unwritten fine print of every extension granted to the original FASEA rules is “sure you can have an extension, but we won’t start to treat you like a profession until those extensions are exhausted”.
Are you happy to further postpone being treated like a professional by the regulators, for the sake of those advisers who haven’t managed to pass a relatively simple exam within the two and half years and 8 potential attempts available?
Me again… I disagree with the sentiment that [b]OUR[/b] fellow advisers taking more time delays us in getting to be a profession. Let’s not forget part of this transition is us having a united front and displaying to the government of the day we won’t be kicked for political fodder.
I’d argue that the biggest impediment is/was actually the funds management/banks/IFM who have served up product and lobbied harder than grassroots advisers who were busy helping people. Funnily enough when push came to shove the banks bailed and I welcome this aspect!
I want as many advisers to pass this exam as possible. It helps US show strength as a profession. To exclude those who struggle with a 3 hour timeframe and the reading of (wordy) legislation says the system is broken – not that these PEOPLE are automatically poor advisers.
There are so many moving parts in this and to assume that peoples no.1 priority was a compliance exam is simplistic at best.
Don’t get me wrong – I want the dial to move back to something that resembles a sane approach to planning, but let’s not eat each other… as the saying goes – united we stand, divided we fall.
Nowhere is it written that advisers who fail to pass by January 1 can no longer give advice or receive income.
to extend the exam out to September 2022 for some is a slap in the face for those of us who put in considerable time to get on top of it before the due date. We can’t keep moving the goal posts for some.
I have passed the exam, and don’t disagree with your comment. However, I think it’s bigger than that. If advisers have to exit the industry, this will have a terrible impact on their clients. Most agree that the exam is a nonsense, and is no reflection on the quality of advice and service being provided. In this regard, I can see why the government have extended. Frankly, it should never have been implemented in the first place. If advisers are providing poor advice kick them out. If they are not, leave them alone. We all get audited, and have clear legislation to adhere to. The regulations have always been there, and the regulator has been asleep. What has come since the royal commission has mostly been total rubbish, and in no ways improves the industry, and ultimately fails to improves outcomes for our clients. This must be the test, and it fails. The whole thing needs to be ripped up and started again.
And Farsea should refund fees and compensate for time spent wasted 😉
The vast majority have passed it first time without issues. If you’re doing this for a third time, you seriously need to consider your position as a planner….no refunds!!