FASEA exam sees lowest pass rate

Only 67% of advisers have passed the January Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) exam.

The overall average pass rate for the exam was 78%, and 89% of advisers who sat the exam had now passed.

For first time sitters, 73% passed, while 46% of advisers re-sitting the exam passed on their second attempt.

Related News:

Overall, 83.6% of first-time sitters had passed the exams while 55% of re-sitters had passed.

Over 12,000 had passed the exam which represented 57% of advisers on The Australian Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC’s) Financial Adviser Register (FAR).

Stephen Glenfield, FASEA chief executive said over 13,440 advisers have sat the exam with nine-in-10 demonstrating they had the skills to apply their knowledge of advice construction, ethics and legal requirements to the practical scenarios tested in the exam.

“In recognition of their achievement, passing candidates who give consent, will have their names added to the successful candidates list on the FASEA website,” Glenfield said.

Candidates who were unsuccessful in this exam would receive additional individual feedback to highlight the curriculum areas that they have underperformed.

They would also receive an invitation to a FASEA led webinar to help them understand their results and provide guidance on how to prepare for their next sitting.

Recommended for you




Anyone else seeing a trend here? Those failing it the first time are increasing failing it a second time. Given the fee of $594 that has to be paid each time IN FULL, I doubt the advisers are not preparing for the exam. Given many questions are obtuse in nature and FASEA's continuing refusal to provide personalised feedback or the actual results in any form, this trend is only going to get worse as we get closer to the end of 2021. Time will tell.

After passing some 70 odd 3hr exams in my B.Sc and masters non-relevant degrees where my average score was about 85%. I passed FASEA within 1hr without study. This exam is a joke.

Doesn't add up..if you're that good why are you in this industry?

Apologies for not being able to fit into your mold of all FPs being dumb and crooks.

I thought FASEA was dismantled. I wonder who is now managing the exam process.

I was fortunate to pass the January exam but I'm not surprised the pass rate was low. As MANY others have said about previous exams the wording of a number questions was vague and the stiumulus was sometimes insufficient to answer a question with certainty. While in the pre-exam webinar fasea spriuked their robust processes, they never answered why, if the have such great processes, there was a re-sit exam in December...hmmm. A few questions also had no relevance at all to anyone working in Financial Planning, including stock broking or risk. I was nervous as anything checking my result this morning and my heart was pounding as I was dreading the result. I sincerely hope that those that didn't pass (and those yet to sit) are able to get themselves through it before the end of the year.

Maybe it has something to do with the following. FASEA PRACTICE EXAM - provided for those sitting in January, based on 70 questions or points - 58 pts re: Multiple Choice & 12 Points for short Answer response. My Integrity - FASEA supported training provider also provided a similar practice exam based on approx. 70 questions worth a total of 70 points - 58 Multiple Choice and 12 written responses worth 1 point each. Actual exam on the day comprised of 78 Questions broken up as follows - 72 Multiple Choice an 6 written response questions - 2 sections to each question requiring 2 written responses worth 2 points each - in total FASEA January exam required 72 Multiple Choice and 24 written response questions to be completed for a total of 96 points. For those advisers that had not studied for a long term were unfamiliar with a 3 hour exam condition, however still prepared themselves for the exam based on the course material provided by FASEA probably found it a bit harsh having to complete an additional 24 questions in the time that was provided. An interesting point is now FASEA appear to have released a new practice exam, which is now based on the higher volume of questions to be completed in the 3 hour exam. As an analogy - imagine being a bit unfit or out of practice, training hard to run a 300 meter race with limited time to prepare. Then on the day find out your running 400 meters. Well done FASEA, truly professional.

it's because stockbrokers and accountants are now finally sitting the exam. reports are that some large broking groups have a 60 to 100% fail.

I think similar would be true for a lot of accountants but they would be ashamed to admit it in public. over 18,000 existing accountants (i.e. CA and CPAs) are grandfathered and do not even have a first degree. it follows then that it is fitting those who have no understanding of financial planning should fail, in what is a very very basic exam.

yes, yes, I passed without any study at all and finished in less than 2 hours. if you cannot pass this exam, you should be nowhere near to giving any advice to anyone. the only person you should be giving advice to is yourself, and that advice should be, "I better go to a licensed financial planner with the appropriate qualifications, and get me some, financial advice"

feel free to reach out to one of us, some of us do pro bono work and might have a spot for you in 6 to 12 months.

It's not really a problem for accountants. The exam only applies to that small percentage of accountants who naively obtained an adviser's licence. In doing so they also made themselves a target for ASIC persecution.

The majority of accountants provide conflicted, inappropriate, illegal advice without a licence. They do so safe in the knowledge they will never have to worry about education standards, the FASEA exam, or ASIC enforcing the law against them.

The silver lining for those accountants that are currently licensed and fail the exam, is they will be rewarded with a much lighter regulatory burden.

Cynical, but yes I have also seen instances of this.
Those instances are becoming fewer though.
To recommend that a client establish a SMSF, an Adviser must be licensed for retail and on the FAR. This generally cannot be done under wholesale advice (except for $10m+).

Yes, but who will enforce that law against accountants who aren't on the FAR that are providing bad retail SMSF recommendations? Not ASIC. They only enforce the law against providers on the FAR. That's where they get their funding.

Until the government establishes a genuine financial consumer protection agency funded by taxpayers, there will be no-one to enforce the law against those unlicensed providers who are causing most consumer harm.

Not sure buddy.
Hoping against hope that 2022, beyond the FASEA exam, is a whole new world and a better one.
I know that's optimistic.

Whenever I read the comments in these articles I’m reminded of the famous quote:“A house divided against itself cannot stand”.
For too long Financial planners have been divided against ourselves.
I have long suspected that the reason Financial Planning profession receives the treatment it does at the hands of regulators and the government are the condescending, unsympathetic and disrespectful attitudes of different segments of our profession to colleagues. All this denigration achieves is to bring the profession into disrepute. For example the attitudes of some of the people that have passed the exam towards others that may not have passed are less than helpful. To assume that anyone that has not passed is somehow not fit to practice plays directly into the hands of the mis-guided bureaucrats. As far as I am aware no other profession denigrates colleagues or their profession in public forums the way financial planners do.
Alas, I suspect we have a long way to go before we become a true profession but a small step might be to extend professional courtesy to colleagues.
This will help us all in the long term.

Add new comment