The Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) exam extension legislation has passed the Senate.
The Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Technology, Senator Jane Hume has announced the passage on the basis of the Government keeping a promise to the financial planning industry.
The passage of the legislation, part of an omnibus bill, was owned to Government negotiations with Senate cross-benchers.
If the legislation had not passed, the only option open to the industry would have been class order relief delivered by the Australian Securities and InvestmentsÂ
Comments
Ok great, it has passed. Can we now please turn our attention to the much more damaging issue of the unworkable Code of Ethics and the FASEA board who lack an understanding of our profession nor desire to put us on par with other professions.
the Code as it is written, if you have a complaint that goes to AFCA, the adviser is toast...no matter what happen. the Codes standard is perfection,..not much less.
Great work done by the AFA behind the scenes - lots of lobbying and Phil Kewin was personally reaching out to practices to assist in getting the One Nation vote over the line.
Welcome news. Certainly takes the pressure off. Thousands of advisers will breath a sigh of relief.
Yay, at least i wont have to waste my time studying for an exam, which will in no way change anything about my ethics and will make no change to the number of advisers who act ethically or unethically, until after the announce the removal of commissions for insurances.
Its also laughable that accountants, mortgage brokers, lawyers and especially EVERYONE WHO WORKS FOR A BANK are exempt from these exams. All these groups have caused way more damage to peoples lives than advisers ever have.
Those within a specialist/advisory role within markets at banks are most certainly not exempt. They have to jump through the same hoops that you do. Why do you think the banks have been involved in ongoing discussions with the FASEA board to have this removed if no one within the bank needs to complete it. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
Based on another thread-maybe we will have two classes of Advisers - "I passed before the extension" "I passed after the extension" that would fit with full disclosure and clients could make a selection based on their preferences. My view: clients could not care less.
I sat the FASEA exam in the June sitting. It was the worst exam I've ever sat, and I've sat plenty at post-graduate level. Poorly written, "vague" questions & answers. Usually you know intuitively when you've nailed an exam. I got over 90% in my Ethics course exam. I think I did "ok", but for so many of the questions, it could go either way (and yes I did PLENTY of study). Plus there were questions not related to the reading list on behavioural finance. It really was crap!!
I concur completely. I complained both in the exam and after. I've sat a lot of exams in my time but never anything so imprecise and poorly written.
Already done mine.
I did the June 2020 FASEA exam, overall I think that the exam was fair and reasonable. One question - no 8, had a bad typo in it i.e. if was referring to one standard while asking a Q about another. Apart from that, I thought it was OK and what a reasonable financial planner should know and can know based on industry experience. Remote proctoring was great as well.
I had a similar question. My course of action was to answer the question about the standard they asked about (ie. Standard Y)
Question gave meaning of Standard X but then asks how Standard Y may have been breached???
A. You are correct. Question 8 was incorrect. I had to read this 3 times and didn’t make sense. Wasted time when time is precious in an exam environment. I hope they are aware of this as every point counts.
Same here. Q8 was stupid along with some other strange question. How did it get past the proof readers?
Add new comment