FASEA will indicate to you if an exam is worth re-marking

Although the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) exam is marked on a pass or fail basis, FASEA has indicated it gives advice to advisers that are close to a pass that they can apply for a re-mark.

The admission to a Senate Estimates committee should give some certainty to advisers who failed the exam and were unsure if it would be worth the effort to apply for a re-mark, which would cost $198 plus GST.

This was particularly notable as with only three sittings left before the 1 January, 2022, deadline, applying for a re-mark might help advisers avoid any issues by being trying to get re-instated on the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) Financial Adviser Register (FAR).

Related News:

Money Management previously noted examples of a successful re-sit attempt, which would help advisers paying another $540 plus GST to sit the exam.

Stephen Glenfield, FASEA chief executive, said any adviser that did not pass could apply for a re-mark, but were warned it may not be worth it.

“If they're nowhere near the pass mark, they're advised [that] you can apply for a re-mark, but your mark is not sufficient,” Glenfield said.

“If your mark is close to the border, the opportunity is there to apply for a re-mark, so it gives them an idea of where they sit without giving an actual mark.”

Glenfield said FASEA had made “good progress” on the feedback it gave advisers after the exam.

“Candidates used to get feedback that said whether they'd underperformed in one, two or three of [the exam] areas,” Glenfield said.

“The feedback that unsuccessful advisers are now getting is, for example, 'in the legal and regulatory compliance area, the areas you underperformed in were A, B, C and D’.”

“It's broken it right down into which bits they've struggled with. And we've gone back, so all those who have been unsuccessful in the past can access that depth as well.

“That can be really important for someone who has perhaps failed two or three times, so they can look for any particular trends.”

Glenfield said FASEA now offered pre and post exam webinars to help advisers at both ends of the process.

“Once you sign up for the exam, you're invited to a pre-webinar that FASEA hosts, where you can ask questions and where FASEA gives a rundown of what the exam will be about, what it will look like and what types of questions will be on it,” Glenfield said.

“Post exam, we run a webinar for unsuccessful candidates, to talk about the areas that unsuccessful candidates struggled with and what they'll need to look at going forward.”

Recommended for you




It is totally unacceptable that FASEA are not publishing the pass mark, nor telling participants their scores. Lives, businesses and careers are on the line. I can't think of a single good reason for this lack of transparency, unless FASEA wish to rig the results to achieve a desired outcome. Until proven otherwise, I will assume this is the case.

Totally agree. This is as unethical as it gets. It's a giant scam.

Yes, I got 99.5% on my FASEA exam. lol

We sat the first one and when the results were announced, they had our % pass mark on each of our notifications when we logged in. Second time we went in they had disappeared. So FASEA knows the mark, why not share it?

FYI - That was a raw score not a percentage. Agree with your point though, why not share this with all participants and also disclose the passmark? I don't understand the decision making on this. What is FASEA hiding?

You're correct, I forgot that. thanks for reminding.

Oh, he's making it up as e goes along. (Said in Monty Python Life of Brian voice).

FARSEA, what about Advisers in regional areas sitting online exam via ProctorU system and that system doesn’t work properly ??
Cases of disaster online experiences of Advisers waiting hours for the system / test to start to work properly on exam day, when they had done the pre exam IT checks.
Then Advisers being constantly interrupted in the exam by the online supervisors as ProctorU not working properly. 40 interruptions to try to get system working properly.
Advisers absolutely tortured taking 10 hours from logon to submit as ProctorU not working properly.
Those tortured Advisers informed by FARSEA they failed, only just failed, but ZERO Special Consideration applied.
FARSEA have zero Ethics.
FARSEA talk a lot about the Reasonable Person Test to apply in their Code and Standards. Yet FARSEA will NOT apply a Reasonable Person Test to an utter failure of their online exam systems.
Disgusted in FARSSA yet again !!!

I see your point "Special Consideration". I did all the pre-exam checks, all worked fine, EXCEPT on the day of the exam, something didn't (ProctorU related)- lucky I logged on at the commencement of the pre-exam 30mins timeframe you get and lucky it was resolved before the exam. However, worrying about "IT" issues is the last thing you need when sitting an exam you've spent weeks studying for and which has cost you $594 and will cost you another $594 if you fail.

Yet special consideration is given to those with English as a 2nd language.

I attempted the first time on Proctoring. An absolute disaster & failed accordingly. Re-attempted a year later, took the full 3 hours & then passed. Proctoring cannot handle poor line speed. Its a mess (for some advisers).

Proctoring sounds too much like a verb used by a Proctologist.

Including all the pre proctologist cleaning process.
What a Sh#t of a mess is FARSEA.
From the moment they stated any Uni Degree older than 10 years counts for nothing, all start from scratch again.
It has been a right Royal Cockup and continues as such.
Right policy (15 years too late), absolute disaster implementation.

Or - here is a novel idea - give advisers the fully marked exam. They will then know exactly what % they got and exactly which areas they did well/poorly in. What are you afraid of, Stephen?

He's afraid of practising what he preaches. This is the most unethical, non transparent and conflicted exercise ive ever seen in my 20 yrs in financial planning and i passed 1st time.

My thought exactly... If the adviser is told there is a chance he won't have failed on a remark, why wasn't this looked at when the paper is marked? If an adviser should have passed, he should be given a pass mark, not told to pay more money to have it remarked!!!

The FARSEA exam cost me about $20,000 in training, fees & lost time with clients. The only upside is that the Fed Govt has forced me to get very familiar with the Corps Act, which I now happily use against them on a regular basis. They are inept.

So just to be clear, FASEA are saying 'sorry you failed, but you also may not have failed, you are welcome to pay a fee to see if you failed or not'.

This just keeps getting better haha.

Exactly SD. It is a joke. I don’t understand why they just can’t, quite simply, provide everyone with their results which would be of greater assistance to those who may have to brush up in some areas. If it smells fishy ……. I’m glad I’m not far from the finishing post and that I have practiced what I have preached giving me options. Sadly the industry has been ruined by over regulation some of which has been created by Industry participants themselves.

And Jane Hume reckons FASEA have done a great job. Maybe shes comparing it to her performance so the bar is very low.

Ah, guys, a point of order which is annoying me. Be accurate. It isn't FARSEA it is FARCE-IA. Get it right! ;-)

Add new comment