FASEA exam pass rate drops

The Financial Advisers Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) has released exam results for the second FASEA exam which saw a pass success rate of 88%.

This was a drop-off of 2%, compared to the inaugural exam, which was held in June 2019.

The exam was held from 19-23 September, 2019, in eight metropolitan and 7 regional centres across Australia and 1697 advisers sat the exam.

Related News:

Registrations for the next exam closed today, which would be offered in 19 locations across the country and held from 5-9 December, 2019.

Registrations for the February 2020 exam were now open, which would be held in 17 locations.

Stephen Glenfield, FASEA chief executive, said: “FASEA is pleased with the implementation of the second exam and congratulates successful candidates on completing an important component of their education requirements under the Corporations Act.

“Unsuccessful candidates are able to re-sit the exam and these advisers will receive guidance on which knowledge areas they need to improve to enhance their ability to pass at a future sitting.”

The exam was marked to credit standard and the pass rate varied with each exam.

Glenfield had previously defended the high pass rate of the exam, and said it wasn’t about setting a bell curve, but a benchmark for competency.




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

Very happy to be in the 88%

And FASEA still aren't publishing the pass-mark!! How do they get away with this? Why so much secrecy? For an organisation forcing extreme, draconian and unworkable ethical standards on advisers, the lack of transparency is unbelievable. For all we know, they are manipulating the pass-mark for each exam to produce a desired outcome. Everything FASEA has touched, smacks of an organistion that is more interested in making themselves look good, rather than doing the hard work to develop sensible, practical solutions in-line with the intent of the legislation. I have lost all faith in FASEA and every adviser I speak to feels the same way.

This old fella got through, so we old dogs still have a bit of life left in us yet.

I’m heartened that 88%, and ~90% of my colleagues in the prior sitting, are deemed to be competent and ethical. Basically it affirms what we already knew - I’m sure there is 5-7% in this cohort who are good planners but may have clammed up under exam conditions or didn’t get to prepare because of time and business constraints, leaving a small % who are incompetent, formerly called the Bad Apples. We could have told them this without the need for a box ticking exercise. And for those good planners who didn’t quite make it this time, study hard and prep for the next one, you’ll be better for the run and we need you in our trenches!! Good luck all.

Agree with your analysis... and would add on that any industry (lawyers, doctors etc) has bad apples in it which will never change so long as there's money to be made

I unfortunately failed the September exam and im gutted, even after preparation. Calling people bad apples over 1 exam isn't a true reflection on any adviser. I bet an adviser with over 20 years experience can still show competence and ethics don't need an exam to prove it. Anyhow. Back to the drawing board.

Markkk, at least you have had the experience of the whole process. You will do better next time. It really is quite overwhelming when the last exam you sat was so many years ago. At it least it was for me. Good luck and stay strong.

Markkk, really sorry to hear that. I am sure you will get it next time.

I passed the September exam, but I have to say that I found it very confusing. I struggled with some of the multiple choice questions not because I was unfamiliar with the subject matter, but because more than one answer appeared to be correct. Well-designed multiple choice questions should have one clear-cut correct answer, rather than asking the candidates to second'guess which one of the multiple correct answers is the one favoured by the testers. Luckily it seems that FASEA have compensated for their sloppy test design by manipulating the pass grade to achieve an acceptable pass rate.

Add new comment