Advisers with major life events left out of FASEA extension

While the Financial Planning Association (FPA) has welcomed the Government’s announcements on the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) exam extension it would have liked to have seen the measure extended to include compassionate grounds. 

 FPA head of policy, strategy and Innovation, Ben Marshan, said he would have liked for the extension to include planners who had experienced significant life or health events rather than just planners who had failed two times or more. 

“We’ve got members who had significant health diagnosis or had experienced significant accidents and have been unable to practice or study, or sign up for the exam.  

Related News:

“They have through bad luck rather than bad planning have ended up in a situation where they can’t continue practicing next year.” 

However, Marshan said there were some practical issues with the measure given that it was the individual advisers who had to register for the exam, and tell their results to their licensees. The licensees were then the ones that registered whether or not their advisers had passed the exam on the Financial Adviser Register. However, the licensee would not necessarily know if the adviser had failed two times or more. 

Also welcoming the extension, the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) acting chief executive, Phil Anderson, said he was pleased the government had taken steps to recognise that there would be a significant number of advisers who despite their best efforts would not have passed by the end of the year. 

“This will at least give them a solution going into next year for what otherwise what would have been a challenging and disturbing experience for them,” he said. 

“…I’m not surprised they had some provisos that it wasn’t available to everyone. And of course, this has been done as part of the tabling of the Single Disciplinary Body legislation. The timing aligned with that.” 

Anderson also said that advisers who were FASEA-qualified needed to be conscious that some of their colleagues were yet to pass the exam and not because they did not have the capability to do so but due to a range of other circumstances. 

“We would ask advisers to recognise that this outcome is a good outcome for their colleagues they should support that,” he said. 

“If that means that a number of advisers will now manage to stay in the profession and achieve standards that they need to a achieve then that’s good for all.” 

Recommended for you




Sorry, but I think the Associations are dead wrong on this one.
Its not as if we (advisers) have not known about the deadline and have fair warning.
Despite all the hoop-la, the exam is not overly onerous if you do a little reading and know what is required to be an adviser.
Just get on with it. Stop pandering to the vocal minority.
Then, we can all do what we are supposed to be doing.
I am over this crap!

Your lack of compassion for others is what is wrong with this profession. Yes 2 years were given to do the exam. However for those who haven't studied for many years it is not the simple process you make it out to be. Further a significant time of that 2 years was impacted by once off events which meant advisers time was required to service a huge number clients. I'm sure clients who could not get in contact with their adviser as they were studying for an exam that adds absolutely nothing would be really happy. To your point if the exam is so easy why do it at all? Wouldn't years of experience benefit clients more an academics view of ethical behaviour and regulations? You aren't the only one over this crap.

I care deeply about my clients that is why I choose to do what I do and will keep doing it for a few more years.
I also care deeply about the welfare of members of my profession and don't think a lot of consideration really went into how "all this crap" would affect us.
However we don't make the rules. We were told what we had to do and how long we had to do it if we wanted to keep doing what we do, but better. I dont think the timeframe was unreasonable and it has already been extended.

If you look at this constructively we did not have 2 years to do this we had 6 maybe 8 one off days that we could register. I for one lost a family member two days before I was due to sit the exam causing ME TO HAVE TO RE APPOINT. Low and behold on the second appt. yet another disaster. Throw COVID in there mountains of "red tape " more onerious legislation fee disclosure and opt in requirements etc etc Its no wonder there are people who have not made it 8 selected days !! Not 2 years

You are quite correct to say not two years. It's two and half years.

Still only 8 days ??

OMG, the whinging! Seriously excuses excuses excuses.
At the end of the day we are all in the same boat, stop being so lazy and just do the exam!

Add new comment