FASEA Feb exam sees 82% pass rate

7 April 2020

More than 80% of advisers who sat the February Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) exam have passed.

There were 2,231 advisers who sat the exam in seven metropolitan and 10 regional centres from 13-18 February, 2020.

In total, 7,488 advisers had now sat the exam, representing 32% of all advisers of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC’s) Financial Adviser Register (FAR).

Related News:

Registrations for the June exam were open until 22 May, 2020, which would be held on 11-16 June with over 1,700 advisers already registered.

The face-to-face sitting of the exam had been cancelled and the June exam would be made available for registered candidates to book as a remote online option.

From 14 April, advisers had the option to defer until the August or a later sitting that would become available to candidates.

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




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

This result should be viewed in comparison to the previous pass rates, ranging from 92%-86%, showing a clear downward trend with each sitting. Anecdotally, there were many complaints from advisers about the February exam in particular, as previously reported by Money Management. Perhaps this latest decline is moreover reflective of the relatively poorer standard of questions for the February exam than that of poor adviser preparation?

How on Earth could you prepare for it? I'm so relieved I passed as I wouldn't have had a clue what to focus on for a resit as I felt I was selecting multi choice answers based not on fact, but on the personal opinion and thoughts of an unknown examiner about subject matter that belonged more in a Greek mythology or English literature exam.

Until FASEA come clean and publish the pass mark for each exam, I'm going to assume they are manipulating the pass mark to get a convenient percentage passing that makes FASEA look good. Why else would they keep the pass grade secret and why else would they say this on their website - '....the ‘Pass Mark’ will be reviewed for each exam cycle and may be adjusted...'
Let's face it, this farcical exercise is not an exam, it is a competition and FASEA are determined to fail a percentage so they look tough. Going forward, to survive, you need to ensure you are not in the bottom 20%. Simple as that. Best of luck.

Can FASEA now get it? That the exam is a waste of time as most advisers pass it on sitting. I kind of over FASEA ASIC and all the mediocrities at the moment. China has let loose a virus killing people around the world, knocking over economies and the British Prime Minister's health is dire. Any justification that the Hayne Royal Commission's recommendations has now gone down the toilet. Cash flow is down but we are still working off our arses even in these times of crisis.

I'm not sure 82% is anything to be happy about. That's 1 in 6 failed. The exam is an irrelevant and poor tool to allow advisers to remain in the industry.

I passed the Feb exam with minimal study, exam took me an hour. People not passing i am sure must have struggled with the technology not the content. The process is a joke as we all know and does not in any way assist older advisers.

FASEA is a joke. An exam written by academics not people in the industry. These academics should pull their heads out of their arse and come and work with advisers to see just how involved our work and day is. How much we care for clients. The quicker this farcical board is dissolved the better. What a waste of time. By the way all this money they make, where does it go. How about putting into education for new advisers wanting to come into the industry. However seeing the new adviser entry requirements, I’d be surprised to see any new advisers come into this industry.

Dallas, I don’t agree with you on entry requirements as the old system meant you had to do NO more study than a carpenter. That was ridiculous. The new system for new entrants is fair and reasonable and how it should always have been.

As far as the academics extracting themselves from their own orifices, I couldn’t agree with you more. My sons lecturer model answer for an exam said ‘trauma insurance is usually tax deductible’ and the FARSEA model answer based comparisons of two super funds on 12 months performance with no reference to investment risk or AA and concluded the difference in fees would have the biggest impact on long term outcomes. IDIOTS

The whole process for existing advisers is a complete joke. Don’t hold your breath on it changing though as it’s now political so our issues have no relevance in any decision.

And yes, poor ppl good luck in life. You’ll never get help from a financial adviser as the regulatory and business risk of taking you on is way too high. This is despite the fact the good we could do for you is MASSIVE. Regulatory insanity.

Ill never need to know. Over 30 years and its all gone stupid and the powers that make the regulation know far to little about the real needs of Australians. You could say its more unethical now for many reasons, least not you cant affors to help all those that need help and to survive, you must focus on the wealthy. Not why i started in the 80's. i need to relax now and wonder what to do with my time.

I sat the February exam and passed (my hand was shaking as I opened up the email to reveal the result as I was far from certain that I had passed, given you don't know what the pass mark is going to be, other than between 65%-75%). I invested a significant amount of time in preparing for the Exam including studying all of the recommended resources. I also completed the required Ethics bridging subject (with a High Distinction), just before the February Exam. I believe I would have achieved the same result in the FASEA Exam without undertaking any of this study, which is not a statement of my ability, but more a statement about the Exam.
I am an Adviser and Chartered Accountant with more than 35 years experience. In that time, I have also Lectured at two capital city Universities. I have many Post Graduate qualifications. So I have sat for hundreds of exams, set Post Grad Uni exams and marked Post Grad Uni exams. So, I come with some experience when I say that this FASEA exam is a FARCE. The exam was poorly written, questions and possible answers were ambiguous (I have never come across a multiple choice question which commences with the words "In your opinion,"). Many of the case studies were so far removed from practical day to day advising, it was laughable and those who sat the February Exam will know what questions I am referring to.
This exam is nothing more than a Political stunt.
A major theme of the standards within FASEA's Code of Ethics is a requirement for Advisers to be transparent in their dealings with clients. Does FASEA not see the irony with its own Exam? There is no transparency with this Exam, everything is secret, including the pass mark and your own mark and there is no feedback on the exam - where is the accountability here? And don't get me started on how poorly you are treated at the Exam venue.
This Exam requirement, particularly for older experienced advisors and many who specialise, is causing significant anxiety, frustration and in some cases, depression. It is appalling to place good people in this position. No wonder less than one-third of all advisors on ASIC's register have attempted the Exam (and only 27% of advisers on the FAR have passed to date). I suspect many older advisors will not be attempting the Exam and that is a lot of good people with tremendous experience exiting the profession.

Your comments are 100% spot on. Further, for every adviser that fails, they willhave to pay another $595 to resit the exam. Given approx 400 failed the February exam, that's an additional $240,000 to ACER/FASEA. With no face to face exams in April nor June due to COVID-19, there are no venue hire fees either. Where is the $$$ going?

65% to 75% is only what they describe as a 'starting point' Peter. In reality, the pass grade could be any number they concoct to deliver an outcome that makes FASEA look good. That's why the pass mark is kept secret, and the numbers passing neatly declines with each exam sitting. Everything this organisation touches is designed to make them look good, with scant regard for improving our profession or delivering better consumer outcomes. FASEA is a complete and utter farce. They have zero respect and support from the adviser community and no right to lecture us on ethics

add fasea to the long list of deplorables that has zero respect for financial planners. we are everyone's favourite whipping boy.

and, why not, abusing us is free of any consequences. unfortunately, our professional bodies are out to lunch there is no one to defend us.

expect it to get even worse than it is now.

Add new comment