The industry education group’s chief executive, Brian Knight, told ifa that with enrolment numbers dropping as a less confident cohort of advisers faced this year’s exam sittings, it was likely that only a few thousand more advisers would attempt the exam before the deadline.
“They had 1,300 booked for the January sitting, so if you take that as an indicator with the six sittings [left], if 6,000 more attempted it 5,000 would pass – you’re going to get to a number of around 15,000 to 16,000,” Mr Knight said.
“The 11,240 that have passed are people that are more prepared and motivated, but for the ones that haven’t done it, it’s going to be harder. What we’re trying to do is get that number up, because we don’t think those people should leave the industry yet.”
According to the most recent FASEA figures, around 52 per cent of ASIC’s adviser register had passed the exam with just under a year until the compliance deadline and six exam sittings left.
Mr Knight said advisers working with Kaplan who had not yet attempted the exam, and those who had sat and failed, were often feeling “overwhelmed” and had not had recent experience in an exam sitting.
“We spend a lot of time giving a lot of reassurance that you’ve been working for 10, 20 years in the industry, you’ve got a lot of knowledge and you just need to work out how that applies,” he said.
“A lot of it is those who have failed have no idea how to manage the time, so we talk to them about technique – things like knocking the multiple choice questions over quickly, and thinking about the main point you want to make in your short answers.”
Mr Knight said even for those advisers who were thinking of shortly retiring from the industry, it was worth attempting the exam to give themselves time to properly prepare their business and clients for their exit.
“If you can get through this you have another four or five years before you have to get the education, and you’ve got time to get a succession plan ready if you’re not going to do that, but if you’re not going to do the exam you’re going to be forced out pretty quickly,” he said.
With FASEA’s re-sitting rules meaning advisers could not attempt the exam more than once every three months, Mr Knight said licensees should be encouraging all advisers who had not yet passed the exam to register for a sitting as soon as possible.
“We think licensees should ramp up the focus, because once we get to March you’re running out of time – you’re getting to two sittings after that,” he said.
“It’s not a time to think about yourself, it’s about this industry – licensees, FASEA, educators, associations, should all be out there putting our hand up to help.”
Until product and advice is separated by law, I’m out come 30 June (after 32 years and all the quals to stay). The rest of you, its just going to get worse or you’re part of the vertical integration con that you call advice.
and yet not a single person that claims to represent advisers, within those bodies that receive over $1,000 a year in membership fees has resigned. Even a Royal Commission, where as a result of the FPA CEO on show the commission stated that we’re unable to self regulate, no resignations, no changes, and advisers still are happy. The Government stepped in an over regulated.Obviously it’s needed. Heads on sticks would send a message. Perhaps this happiness with the status quo says more about advisers. Please don’t complain given this lethargy. Perhaps you deserve it.
I think you will find there is regular turnover in both staff and board members at the FPA. Mark Rantall, Neil Kendall, Deen Sanders & Matthew Rowe have all moved on from senior FPA roles in recent years. There has also been major changes in policy by the FPA in recent times. For instance the FPA is now advocating to get rid of the licensee model and have all advisers registered individually. A policy position which would have been anathema to the FPA of old.
Yet people with a gigantic chip on their shoulder about something the FPA did in the past, hurl insults from the sidelines as if there has been no change in personnel or policies or the broader industry. Stop wallowing in bitterness, and get up to date.
The CEO is still there, the board make up is still the board pre and post FASEA and pre and post royal commission. It’s easy to say “don’t throw stones from the sidelines” but the FPA are not guided by members, they don’t listen to members and if you do provide feedback you’re told to leave. FPA = North Korea
The Government has been stepping in and over regulating for 20 years this is is just the latest, instead of getting rid of the biggest cancer of the industry (vertical integration). Nothing about the existing system is a win (except for lawyers / ASIC employees looking for “heads on sticks” for bonuses / AFCA). It’s not good for consumers, and the final result of all this will be that clients will forced into unregulated advice / wholesale market with no protection whatsoever. And no, there has never been happiness regarding the status quo, the unfortunate reality of the industry is that the vertical integration system has ensured that individual planners have absolutely no power (the fact that Hayne made no ruling on this shows what a complete joke he is, he had a chance to genuinely improve the industry and he failed miserably), vertical integration is just what the big boys want and he didn’t dare discuss it. The exam, for me, is a non issue, it’s the ridiculously over complicated advice regulations is the real reason for the decline.
Plenty of advisers are happy with that vertical integration model and yet we all seem to be paying.
This exam is an abject waste of an advisers time, money and sanity. Which absolute guru dreamt up the idea that one could ‘test’ someone on their ethics? At the extreme, criminal masterminds have proven throughout history they can fool people – they’re intelligent enough to give the right answers when required for ‘testing’ purposes but this has ZERO correlation with how they will behave when their self interest is tested in the field – with a client for example. No, there is nothing positive about this whole FARCE-IA ‘ethics’ exam – nothing at all. [b]There is no upside about it[/b][b][/b]. Instead there is only angst, cost in both time and money, banishment of honest older advisers who, perhaps, cannot handle exam classroom conditions and [i]contrived exam questions DESIGNED to deceive[/i][i][/i] (after decades of loyally protecting their clients!).
.
I cannot and will not go anywhere near endorsing this travesty of a situation where older and valuably experienced advisers are being given the short shrift and being pushed from the industry they built and loved. It is indefensible that bureaucrats and politicians have been beholden to special interest groups to cause this to happen and our industry associations have not put a sharp STOP to the lunacy that created such a ridiculous exam and conditions to be allowed.
.
I am one of the advisers being pushed out. Perhaps it may be different if there was a more appropriate and targeted qualification for risk advisers. The AQF8 rubbish is totally inappropriate for risk advisers. I am not proficient at classroom exams. I am a risk adviser. I am somewhat of an industry expert in risk advice – yes, I am not shy either as you may tell! I do NOT require the AQF8 qualifications or a fantasy ‘ethics exam’ to advise on term, IP or trauma cover. I do not require to pay $10K-$20K++ to obtain said qualifications to a conflicted university system. I keep up to date through my dealer’s Kaplan program and extensive reading every day in my chosen field and more. I am currently fully qualified for everything I need to service my precious clients to a 100% level. I have been protecting clients for 35 years and NEVER had a complaint against me either official or otherwise.
.
I will NOT do this exam. It is an insult to me and over a dozen of my closest risk colleagues and they are not doing it either – except for 2 of them who know how to handle exam conditions – they are in their 40s. The exam is an insult because it does not recognise WHO we are and the EXPERIENCE we have AND is contrived to trick. More importantly any so called ‘ethics exam’ is an oxymoron and doomed to fail at its intended purpose. This should be self evident to all with eyes to see and intelligence to think. We will be retiring at least 10 years early (on average between us) in or around December this year (some before) and will most will no doubt look back on this industry with sadness and possibly some bitterness. Bitterness, if it occurs, will be directed at those who were there to protect advisers and our industry and failed. Of course, we all know that “all that’s needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”. Well, that’s what’s happened in here Australia in our once great industry. I know, even in our forced retirements, we will continue to worry each day about our clients. Good luck and fortune to each and every adviser struggling with this indignity.
Enjoy retirement
Hard to know if you are being facetious ir genuine in your retirement wishes. let’s assume you are being genuine.
Actually can appreciate your bitterness as the exam is questionable in what it actually tests, however I’ve just passed it and I’m 60; to be honest, don’t agree with a “once great industry” comment. Too many shonks and if this drives them out, that’s a good thing.
This exam is an abject waste of an advisers time, money and sanity. Which absolute guru dreamt up the idea that one could ‘test’ someone on their ethics? At the extreme, criminal masterminds have proven throughout history they can fool people – they’re intelligent enough to give the right answers when required for ‘testing’ purposes but this has ZERO correlation with how they will behave when their self interest is tested in the field – with a client for example. No, there is nothing positive about this whole FARCE-IA ‘ethics’ exam – nothing at all. [b]There is no upside about it[/b][b][/b]. Instead there is only angst, cost in both time and money, banishment of honest older advisers who, perhaps, cannot handle exam classroom conditions and [i]contrived exam questions DESIGNED to deceive[/i][i][/i] (after decades of loyally protecting their clients!).
.
I cannot and will not go anywhere near endorsing this travesty of a situation where older and valuably experienced advisers are being given the short shrift and being pushed from the industry they built and loved. It is indefensible that bureaucrats and politicians have been beholden to special interest groups to cause this to happen and our industry associations have not put a sharp STOP to the lunacy that created such a ridiculous exam and conditions to be allowed.
.
I am one of the advisers being pushed out. Perhaps it may be different if there was a more appropriate and targeted qualification for risk advisers. The AQF8 rubbish is totally inappropriate for risk advisers. I am not proficient at classroom exams. I am a risk adviser. I am somewhat of an industry expert in risk advice – yes, I am not shy either as you may tell! I do NOT require the AQF8 qualifications or a fantasy ‘ethics exam’ to advise on term, IP or trauma cover. I do not require to pay $10K-$20K++ to obtain said qualifications to a conflicted university system. I keep up to date through my dealer’s Kaplan program and extensive reading every day in my chosen field and more. I am currently fully qualified for everything I need to service my precious clients to a 100% level. I have been protecting clients for 35 years and NEVER had a complaint against me either official or otherwise.
.
I will NOT do this exam. It is an insult to me and over a dozen of my closest risk colleagues and they are not doing it either – except for 2 of them who know how to handle exam conditions – they are in their 40s. The exam is an insult because it does not recognise WHO we are and the EXPERIENCE we have AND is contrived to trick. More importantly any so called ‘ethics exam’ is an oxymoron and doomed to fail at its intended purpose. This should be self evident to all with eyes to see and intelligence to think. We will be retiring at least 10 years early (on average between us) in or around December this year (some before) and will most will no doubt look back on this industry with sadness and possibly some bitterness. Bitterness, if it occurs, will be directed at those who were there to protect advisers and our industry and failed. Of course, we all know that “all that’s needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”. Well, that’s what’s happened in here Australia in our once great industry. I know, even in our forced retirements, we will continue to worry each day about our clients. Good luck and fortune to each and every adviser struggling with this indignity.
There is a lot of truth in what you say but when barbers became surgeons – yes, really – they went through a similar process of quality assessment with lots of them going back to cutting hair rather than trepanning, amputation, setting bones etc.
It is stupid, it is unfair, it is a honeypot for academics. It is all of this but it is also mandatory. I did my first degree in my mid 50s and just put in the hours until I could do it. It was a lot of hours but now these things are dead easy and with the right attitude lots more could pass. Moral outrage at the unfairness, sure, but where could you earn $200,000 plus with hardly any qualifications?
I am certainly in the market for purchasing risk lists and am registered with all the main agents. If you are ready to walk away but would like to have three years of after tax income then talk to agents. Those with Irish accents seem especially good.
These numbers seem optimistic. I doubt there are many advisers who are serious about remaining in the profession who haven’t completed the exam or at least registered for the Jan sitting. I don’t know of any. But I do know of advisers who have passed the exam, but are still leaving and also compliance/tech staff who were registered as advisers for the sole purpose of completing the exam so they could coach others. If we end up with more than 14,000 advisers in Jan 2022 I will be very surprised. We are on track for a 50%+ wipe out compared to Jan 2019 numbers. Well done to ASIC. They achieved their goal. I hope they are proud of themselves.
Yes, and when those chickens come home to roost, we shall see what becomes of the life companies who did NOT champion the cause for their advisers and endorsed 2 year responsibilities on risk business, endorsed lowering of commissions (didn’t fight for advisers whatsoever!) and generally deserted us in a sea of platitudes. How do life companies expect to even exist without advisers writing business? Oops . . . RoboBusiness won’t do it. That was their big hope – that they would get to [b]pay zero commissions when Robo was everywhere.[/b][b][/b] Life companjies run by the featureless faces that inhabit ivory towers these days have forgotten the lynchpin of our industry – that the bulk of life insurance is [b]SOLD[/b][b][/b], [i]not bought[/i][i][/i]. Let us know, in 2025, how that’s all worked out for you life companies . . .
Good points. Kaplan’s assumption of consistent sitting and pass rates throughout 2021 seems flawed. The majority who haven’t attempted it yet have already made a decision to exit. I expect to see the incremental numbers of exam passers tail off significantly throughout the year.
The outcome will be very clear to most advisers by 30 June.
After that, it is more likely about business restructure than passing the exam.
The original deadline has already passed. There’s been numerous opportunities over the last 18 months to sit the exam. The deadline has been extended by a year. The exam isnt that hard if you know your job. Someone with 10 or 20 or 30 years experience should knock it on the head with ease. That they cant proves that they possibly shouldnt be in the industry…
The evidence, both authoritatively reported by advisers who have sat it and anecdotally form various other sources says the opposite. The exam is designed to deceive. The questions have been designed to ensure a straight answer is not required – a convoluted question with double negatives with numerous nebulous outcomes possibly correct. The marking and grading system is opaque. It is an abject disaster – this has been widely reported and verified. Do not demean yourself endorsing this idiocy. It is not designed to test for knowledge as suh. It is designed around fantasy questions on integrity that anyone can fake sincerity to answer ‘the way’ academics want it answered. It is NOT real world. It is a farce but a dangerous oine with horrid ramifications and careers depending upon it. Ill conceived – at best.
Yes, the exam was an absolute shocker. Badly written, completely opaque.
However, just suck it up and do it. Its half a day. If you study, you’ll pass and then you can move on and not worry about it any longer.
At the end of the day, if people can see a future in the industry they will stay. Sure, there may be some that drop off because of the exam, but if conditions in the industry were fine then they would be replaced. This is clearly not the case, fasea is just one issue of a much greater problem.
Exactly right Jimmy, the exam is not hard (i.e. the 90% pass rate) for anyone who has been in the industry for a period of time. I think the excuses people putting forward for not doing the exam are weak. The “I’m old, experienced, don’t like exams, it’s a conspiracy to get rid of me…” have no substance. Many, quite rightly are restructuring their businesses (including in some cases closing the doors) that they planned when the FASEA requirements were announced. Those that haven’t planned are now bleating. It’s sad and their bleatings are a stain on the sector.
Garbage absolute money spinner
Another con from industry people who have never given advice
If you can’t sell be a trainer ???