During an appearance on the latest episode of the ifa Show, Lifespan Financial Planning head Eugene Ardino discussed mental health in the advice industry and said that advisers, particularly senior planners, have been negatively impacted by the exam.
“An exam that quite frankly, in many cases, doesn’t have a lot to do with giving advice, a lot of it’s very academic,” Mr Ardino said.
“And that creates a lot of self-doubt and is leading to a lot of advisers suffering mental health issues as a result.”
Mr Ardino added that he is concerned about the questions featured in the exam.
“I did the exam and, my goodness, I was lucky enough to pass and partly it’s because I live and breathe at a licensee level, but I left there scratching my head thinking, ‘Where are these questions coming from?’”
Listen to the full podcast here.
Last week, draft exposure regulations of the incoming Better Advice Bill noted 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.”
I feel the issue is the broad term applied to “advisers” I suggest a vast majority of broad based (holistic) financial planners have passed, and in fact all the ones I personally know, including myself , all passed first attempt. It seems to be the specialist advisers ie stockbrokers and risk advisers that are struggling. Like Liam Neeson..they “have a very particular set of skills, skills they have acquired over a very long career”. Does this make them lesser advisers ..definitely not ..are they “holistic” financial planners ..no… and that’s the problem.
The FASEA exam is about law and ethics. It is not about any particular technical specialty. If stockbrokers and risk advisers are saying the exam is less relevant to them, it implies they believe law and ethics is less relevant to them.
FASEA Standard 7: “You must satisfy yourself that fees and charges are fair and reasonable.”
Surely what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander?!
Its not a difficult exam
To all who says passing exam important: I hold a defying financial planning from 2010 and have passed the exam. I am a proud risk adviser.
I can bluntly say neither the degree or Fasea exam is directly related to how I provide risk advice to the clients. Bit of fasea conducts, Corp act to follow and that’s it, may be 5 percent risk advise us learned by bowing down to old risky and learning from them..
By passing exam and the degree there is no change to my practice whatsoever.. rather it was a hinderAnce.. I would have gained more if I had followed an experienced risky.
Not sure where this whole thing is leading to..
I’m an adviser for 30 years and FASEA is the best thing that has happened to the financial planning industry. Advisers should stop crying and do the work.
Well Don, I’ve been an adviser for over 20 years and passed the exam early on, but still think it’s a farce and waste of time. Not sure what real benefit you think this provides for our industry, but would be interested to know. It neither test an advisers technical ability, client interaction ability or anything that is really an essential skill. What it does cover off on, should be covered by a decent compliance team and some compliance updates around the standards.
For most busy advisers, this was just a waste of money and a distraction from servicing clients.
I’m just confused how anyone still practicing in this field thinks this exam actually has any merit.
Hi Anonymous (great name by the way)… As an adviser for over 10 years, I thought (in my mind) I was an ethical adviser. However “how ethical” is subjective to the person applying the self-assessment. I found the Ethics exam provided me with a deeper level of adherence, which can only benefit myself and my clients. The study was a drag, however after nearly a year of passing the exam, I believe the exam has been very useful and has made me a more considerate adviser.
Well said agree 100% let’s show a bit empathy and compassion you keyboard trolls for advisers that are yet to get through the exam. Do not judge other adviser’s you don’t know their personal situation. Sure we have had 2 years to get through the exam however a lot of advisers may have personal struggles and could suffering with mental health issues. Totally agree you should be “degree qualified” that is a must, but this ridiculous exam is a complete waste of time and money. To me I would want to deal with an adviser who is caring, shows empathy, trustworthy, honest and who is degree qualified. Passing the FARCEA exam does not give you these important traits of being an adviser and certainly does not make you a better adviser. It is simply a tick boxing exercise for these morons in Canberra who are so out of touch with the real world and the advice industry.
I’ve been an adviser for 35 years, B,Comm, CFP, F(CH)FP, ADV Dip FS (FP), SMSF Accrediation and 2 years ago FASEA ‘approved’. My take is that FASEA was just an annoyance, passed the KAPLAN ‘mock’ test without actually even knowing how to open the ‘course’ material (I had to be shown on the day). Three months later wrote the real thing via Procturing…and the Proctor had to delete all kinds of applications from my computer which meant a 75 minute delay in starting the exam… I still passed. (Yes, this time I knew how to open and read the FASEA material).
It WASN’T hard to pass people. Reckon if I spent 12 hours studying for this exam it was A LOT! Just get it done ALREADY.
1. How can advisers still be complaining about an exam they have had 2 years to prepare for? Seriously, if you haven’t done it already, stop your whinging and waiting for Government to change the rules.
2. Why the need for Government to double the fee? Given it is a mandatory test and they don’t need to run classes for it, this is just a gouge. Stop it already.
3. The sooner we move past this the better. Maybe then the Government can concentrate on the real problem – removing the nexus between products and advice.
This does nothing but highlight why the exam should be, no MUST be an annual exam. Two attempts, but every single year..,year after year after year….until professionalism gets kicked into Planners..We’ve still got planners wanting to work with AMP or pick a licensee based on what’s in it for them. Not to mention Advisers renewing with the FPA.
The lack of professionalism of individuals that took “years” to complete this is shameful, and a reflection as a whole on the wider problems in the advice population. Mr Ardino any adviser that goes through an annual audit could pass this “open book” exam and as for the rest of the exam it was about making the time to read the FASEA code. This exam was nothing but a box ticking exercise but from what I have seen from Advisers since i can’t see anything that has changed in this industry.
Well said! We only want well educated, up to date advisers to be a truly professional industry that is respected by the public
I have no idea why this comment has so many down votes. It is time to make it harder to become an adviser. This will leads to better client outcomes in the longer term.
I’d be all for an annual test of our knowledge. Oh wait, I think that’s called CPD…
I did and passed the exam first go nearly 2 years ago now, but it was a JOKE. Had NOTHING to do with what we do every day. I crammed for it for 3 days, passed, and have retained very little, because it’s NOT RELEVANT to delivering quality, client focused advice.
I’m all for raising the bar, but this exam is like expecting a race car to go faster because you painted it a different colour.
CPD is Continuing Professional Education – meant to keep us all abreast of changes happening within our fields. It is not an exam to test our knowledge or skill – The FASEA exam had done what it was meant to – a wake up call to the industry and ‘testing’ what we know and more importantly don’t know and should!
Anyone who didn’t pass the exam yonks ago should not be practicing.
You are spot on. There has been adequate time and frankly every adviser who want this to be an industry with only professional, well educated practitioners will acknowledge that these exams are an important building block.
All the complaining only reinforces that the industry has to improve. And if that means less advisers or less practices then so be it.
This topic is worse than hearing about covid all the time. As a double vaxed and exam passed in a trial one and the actual one ages ago and all the education requirements met – can we move on. If you legislate something like this then be prepared for the ramifications of that legislation. Of course elderly advisers will struggle to meet these requirements – the legislators wanted them out – they wanted the older advisers to lose their businesses. The only thing they didn’t predict was that this has been done in a pandemic where these advisers are also struggling with online exams and zoom meetings. No wonder we have lost so many advisers. A disgusting way to treat people who have worked hard for many years and come with a wealth of experience. All the young ones now can invest in Crypto as there are no advisers to show them how to invest anymore. Don’t get me started on the cost of advice…!
Please the sooner the industry gets rid of advisers who lack the competency to pass a basic exam after 2 or more attempts the better the rest of us will be. Its absurd to be complaining about this. If I was a consumer I would only want an adviser who had the mental capacity to understand complexities of financial planning from all angles. If compliance and regulations are too difficult for them, them how can they possibly understand the complexities of the constantly changing super/ aged care/ taxation considerations that should be considered for a client.
It was actually possible to have 8 attempts and still pass. There was no rule about maximum number of attempts, only the minimum time between attempts. There were 15 sittings available over two and a half years, and after allowing for minimum time between sittings after a fail, 8 attempts would been the maximum available.
Your answer explains your understanding of the situation for those advisers who have not yet passed.
100% agree. Too many laggards still left.
Yep
“ a lot of it’s very academic”. You and I must have completed very different exams. Privacy Act, anti money laundering, ethics. I don’t believe these are academic. If an adviser can’t pass this exam, perhaps their skills as a licenced adviser, with the legislated requirements that go with being licenced, are not as good as they thought.
Anyone who thinks this exam adequately or in any way effectively tests for “ethics” has identifiable cognitive issues. FARCE-IA should be ashamed of itself for putting any adviser, especially a risk adviser, through this abject waste of time, resources and money. It is a pathetic attempt only for pollies to look like they are doing something to stay relevant and get re elected. They should all be thrown out.
The exam isn’t even hard. You need to know the law to keep yourself out of trouble so I would be concerned about the number of advisers that cannot pass this.
All advisers need to be fully qualifed to be advisers, we’ve had more than enough time to get prepared.
While completing my Graduate Diploma of FP, there were many assignments and exams that did not relate to my work an an FP. This is the same for literally every profession and higher education process.
We can just excuse education standard because students suffer mental health due to the pressure of the exams.
Even in highschool, we learn assignments and exams can be stressful. It’s a part of life.
Would you be happy if your brain surgeon didnt pass his exams due to mental health? Do you thing brain surgeons only sit exams related directly to the brain or do you think they have sat exams that cover all manor of the human anatomy?
Great analogy –
Yes but the diploma you did was at least relevant. The FARCE-IA exam is not. It is a political stunt.
If only they had kept the cut-off at 31/12/2021 we wouldn’t have to hear anymore compliants about this. NB: FASEA exam is here to stay.
great
We’re going to keep hearing whinging about the exam over the full two and a half years right up until 31 December 2021 aren’t we?
If only 31 Dec 2021 was the end of it Bill. With the extension to the extension, granted to those for whom two and a half years wasn’t enough, we’ll still be hearing about it all through next year I suspect.
and beyond.. remember there is an extension to late 2022
It is a tough exam, I have passed it however that was probably luck as much as skill or knowledge.
If I can pass it or indeed, 80% of people can pass it then surely the others can provided they do some study and more importantly, brush up on exam technique – this is important for those trickier questions.
We should expect though that a cohort won’t pass it – or else, what is the point?
Even if you didn’t pass it on your first attempt LJ, anyone who got organised and used all the available time and potential resits, could have attempted it 8 times prior to 31 Dec 2021. Regardless of the exam’s content, anyone who is that lacking in organisation skills and ability to learn that they couldn’t pass in spite of those generous conditions, should not be a financial adviser.
Yep. Sadly. If they’d done the study and paced themselves, there wouldn’t be this stress.