On Friday, 25 March, ASIC confirmed that from the 333 that sat the exam, 32.4 per cent (108) of the candidates passed.
Of that number, 73 per cent were resitting the exam for at least the second time.
The result comes after 52 per cent of candidates passed the exam in November.
“To date, over 19,850 candidates have sat the exam,” ASIC said on Friday.
“Nearly 91 per cent of candidates who have sat the exam have passed, demonstrating they have the skills to apply their knowledge of advice construction, ethics and legal requirements to the practical scenarios tested in the exam.”
The next sitting will take place from 12 to 16 May, with enrolments to open from 4 April and close on 26 April.
Last year ASIC confirmed that during 2022, examinees sitting the first three exams could choose to sit the exam in an exam centre or through remote proctoring. From 1 October 2022, exams will only be available via remote proctoring.
In January, BT revealed that completing the exam was identified as the top priority for advisers in 2022.
“The implication, based on current law, is that these advisers will have been removed from the Financial Adviser Register as at 1 January 2022, and will no longer be able to provide personal advice to a retail client,” BT’s head of financial literacy and advocacy Bryan Ashenden said.
All quiet after the June results? What is the percentage and why no update ffrom ASIC
Most financial planners struggle with ethics. If you asked a consumer if signing up to a firm that subversively pressured you into selling the home team products if that was ethical they’d say NO. Ask an Adviser and you get a different response, most likely being it depends on the dealer group fee, and how much they’d pay for your marketing. You can understand why most planners fail. Some advisers have spent decades getting kick backs, subsidies, and other payments whilst belonging to product manufacturers and that ethical line has become blurred. The fact Advisers are sitting just sitting this exam now is also a direct reflection on their lower standards of professionalism. They talk in terms of ME and I and it’s just all about them.
[quote=Anonymous]As someone else said the exam covers the corps act, ethics & consumer behaviour. These things are common to anyone providing advice whether they offer holistic advice or just risk insurance or stockbroking. There were no questions about investment methodologies, insurance coverage or stock analysis just the basic building blocks of advice. [/quote]
Actually this is incorrect based on Feb exam. Did you sit the Feb exam? I sat it and passed first go as a new entrant – but the questions were not what I expected.
Out of curiosity, How long have you been in the financial services industry? Or are you a full new entrant? Im new to the profession and have been unsuccessful again.Thanks
To respond to Anon1 – quite a while in the industry in a compliance role. New entrant to advice.
As a holistic advisor I passed first time.
Friends who specialise in insurance or stockbroking have all failed a couple of times. The November sitting had quite a few questions pertaining to the share market. For an insurance broker that is completely irrelevant.
Friends who have failed are all highly intelligent, capable and experienced. (I have seen their work and it is high quality)
I believe there needs to be a greater understanding for advisers who did not pass the exam on multiple occasions.
There is serious mental health issues at present across the adviser market and many especially elder advisers have not had to sit time based exams for more than 30 years.
I strongly believe those that failed more than once should be able to get a copy of the actual results ,and the areas the examinier determined was their shortfall so they can spend time ounderstanding the reasons for the fail, and addrss this with their AFSL education and complaince teams.
I am of the belief many advisers whi have failed are competent advisers.
Some may simply freeze in an exam environment or have trouble deciphering the manner in the way the questions are asked.
I think our industry needs more advisers, and for those that sat and failed on multiple occasions should be granted fairness , honesty, truthfulness from FASEA .
If an adviser who after knowing the shortfalls and then studies , and gets support from the AFSL in learing then fails again I concede there is an issue with competence and these advisers should look to retire or pas their client facing activities to the neext genration of advisers.
Surely providing these advisers actual results of their failings is good for the industry and will avoid any second guessing where the knoledge shortfall actually lies.
It also gives clarity to an adviser who may have just failed by a small margin to have the confidence to sit again, and likewise if the actual mark was severely below the level required to pass it gives them a wake up call, or confirms they may well be best to accept the decsion and move on.
There are 3 basic areas in the exam. Those that failed were informed which of those areas they failed, obviously some were advised they failed in all three and that’s formed the basis of people claiming they werent told where they failed.
Most of that reads like a pity party of excuses as to why people havent passed.
As to your last paragraph, if you failed, you’d be best to treat it as if you failed all areas and by a large margin, that way you might put the appropriate amount of effort into it, given that this is a career killer if you dont pass.
[quote=Concerned]The exam is very poorly regarded by the real academic community. No problem with a proper exam but what has been presented is a fiasco. [/quote]
Advisers should not be given 6 -8 attempts to pass an exam , that is a sham and embarrassment to the profession. Move to new industry if you fail.
Unfortunately, you are correct. But not for reasons you may appreciate. I am a financial adviser and have been practising advice since the year 2000. I hold an undergraduate and master’s degree in Economics (Macquarie and UNSW) and completed the CFP requirements in 2016 (no open-book assessment ex CFP 5 exam). I am proud of my role, I am proud of our profession. Still, I unashamedly advocate for the founding members of the industry from which our profession has evolved. The profession would not exist if it were not for the mass of pioneers. If it weren’t for these people I guess I would have become a soulless self-important accountant. Senior advisers have been humiliated while they should be adorned. As you have quite rightly pointed out, this is indeed a sham and an embarrassment to the profession.
Passing the exam proves absolutely nothing in relation to the client relationship, rapport, transmission and explanation of complex
principles and information, personal communication skills, empathy, understanding, education regarding financial strategy and the breakdown of complex information into understandable blocks by which important decisions regarding future outcomes can be determined.
This is where the value of a good financial adviser is determined.
The ability to pass highlights an advisers capability to learn new concepts and apply them. Something that is required time and again in our profession. The ability to sit an exam in a pressure environment also highlights and advisers ability to deal with pressure. Something that is require time and again in our profession where we have deadlines, market crashes, etc.
Your comments would normally be valid however this FARCE of an irrelevant exam created by ‘removed-from-reality’ academics does not come close to passing muster as a grade of adviser competence or ethics. Not even close. It is an exam that proves clearly the academics have zero concept of the duties and daily work of an adviser and even less of a risk adviser. The two disciplines should have separate exams created with close consultation by those in the field who know how to help clients on a practical and proven level – not from the clueless classroom academics who’ve never left school or the nether-world of theory.
I think it is great that the exam is weeding out the people that really should not be in the industry. Too long have we had to hear about advisers giving poor advice and its real people that actually suffer as a result. happy to see more go.
All an examination in most traditional forms demonstrates, is that one is able to recall and recite something they’ve read. It proves no great intelligence, aptitude or general ability to provide ethical, effective, positive outcomes for clients/consumers. This is one of the reasons the public service and especially ASIC are so inefficient, illogical and inefficient – they are heavy with individuals with pieces of paper to their names but nothing more
The exam is very poorly regarded by the real academic community. No problem with a proper exam but what has been presented is a fiasco.
Surely the AFA and FPA need to act on this mess as the exam is a croc.
Should be set by our peers with common sense questions. Its time.
YES and the life risk advisers should sit a separate exam that is actually relevant and appropriate to their craft – very different craft to investment advising. You’d think these so-called ‘academics’ would see the distinction but we are talking about people who’ve never actually left school in a real sense – cloistered their whole lives. Sickening we have top rely on their understanding of things at all – they have no clue.
The exam is about law, ethics, and consumer behaviour. It’s disappointing that so many “risk advisers” think these things are not relevant to them.
The exam is a sad farce, designed to trick and deceive honest advisers with integrity. It is less a relevant exam then a mirror maze designed by entities with their collective heads in the clouds.
I sat this exam as a new entrant and passed. However it was hard – much of the content was outside of the recommended reading (provided by ASIC). There was also minimal correlation in content to the practice exam which ASIC suggests is a good guide to the exam. I have post graduate qualifications in 2 disciplines and I had to draw on knowledge from previous study other than the recommended reading provided by ASIC. It was a genuinely tough exam and I feel for those who did not make it through. If you relied solely on the recommended reading/topic areas provided by ASIC, you would have found it very challenging to say the least.
The longer you waited to do this exam, the more obtuse the questions became. The first few exams were apparently similar to practice exams. I sat June 2020 and was hard but fair, only a few obscure questions. Admit I would be very nervous siting this exam now
Yes, that’s beyond unfair and sickening and ASIC should be abjectly ashamed of themselves. Clearly the words ‘transparent’ and ‘full disclosure’ should be slowly explained to the clowns running ASIC!
agree with your opinion 100%!
I sat and passed in early 2020, but agree it was not an easy exam. It was also the only exam I have ever sat, where I finished and had absolutely no indication if I had done enough to pass or would fail! Luckily I passed first go!
It’s now time to initiate court proceedings and force the transparency of the results, questions and answers.
Totally unconstitutional, unethical, unrelated.
And the cocky ones who boast their success, you still have to complete more onerous study by 26
Nope. Have done all the study too, with a full time job, with a family, with a life outside of work.
Get on with it, or get out.
Actually no mate, fully qualified under new requirements after completing the ethics course. Why is that? Because I decided many years ago to not just do the minimum through a shonky education institution
The cocky ones have already done the study mate. Because instead of whining, they’ve been studying. I sit my last exam today and I’m done. ANd it’s actually been very worthwhile. I was against it at the start, but having gone through it, in hindsight I i dont know why I was against it. Ive learned much, despite my 20+ years of industry experience..
I love the comments surrounding poor advice for those that do not pass this style of exam, barking up the wrong tree I’m afraid, some people cannot handle exams full stop as we all get older, that does not say you are a poor adviser. Stupid systems were put in place initially and look at the last result. Poor results.
So let’s assume you have children who need to study and pass exams to put them in a position to have a good career or to advance their careers. Would you apply the same excuses for them? NO! You would help them through. You might get them some additional coaching. You’d tell them to knuckle down because life can be hard sometimes. For sure, you wouldn’t be telling them the system is wrong and everything will work out without them trying harder.
You’re conveniently leaving out the part about how your kid’s exams are focused, relevant and appropriate to their chosen pathways whereas this FARCE of an exam they are forcing on advisers is none of those things – especially hapless risk advisers.
As someone else said the exam covers the corps act, ethics & consumer behaviour. These things are common to anyone providing advice whether they offer holistic advice or just risk insurance or stockbroking. There were no questions about investment methodologies, insurance coverage or stock analysis just the basic building blocks of advice.
If you are either unwilling or unable to be able to pass a simple test then unfortunately its time to go
Thanks you DH, I have not sat exams since i completed my degree 40years ago, but that does not make one a poor adviser, like most things in life some are good at some tasks others are good at different tasks, still doesn’t mean someone is a poor adviser. Its a pity people like you can make inane comments like this without putting your name to them, show a bit mo0re empathy for your fellow human beings.
At the end of the day we are trying to professionalise the industry. For any profession you have to sit an exam. Unfortunately time for the dead wood to go. Perhaps become a mortgage broker or paraplanner.
I completely agree. It’s astounding the number of advisers who are failing even after two attempts. That’s neither the exam nor the subject matter’s fault. Whilst some advisers are using the “I’m not used to/can’t do exams” reason for failing let’s not forget that we are in an industry that requires constant learning in a professional area where we are dealing with clients life style and mental health and to be valid all learning needs to tested. The old days of free passes are dead.
Actually I think to some degree it is the fault of the exam. This past exam had a lot of questions that weren’t related to the recommended reading as set by ASIC ( I sat and passed the exam as noted above – but my result was thanks to prior knowledge not the prescribed reading list). If ASIC wants to set difficult exams at least provide some structure to the learning content to assist the students sitting the exam.
Adding that as the exam now costs over $900 to sit – I really believe ASIC needs to provide more assistance to structure the content to assist students.
All the more reason to pass it first time.
Insufficient numbers to come to a meaningful conclusion. 73% of 333 is 243 advisers with 2+ misses and 90 newer people – presumably mostly new entrants. If the latter have a 50% pass rate, then 63 of 243 or 26% of the 2+ misses group passed.
Sorry state of affairs for those ARs stressing through this exam.
Whilst the test is pointless and does nothing to ensure competence, a 32.4% pass rate is shocking.
I don’t agree it is pointless. For the 77.3% who were not able to pass they are probably some that are out there giving poor advice to people anyway.
I think a large proportion of these advisers doing the exam didn’t try, they just did it to maintain there ability to advise till September 2022.
They had to have sat two exams by December for the extension therefore this is not the case.