FPA and AFA make extending FASEA exam timetable a priority

21 May 2019

The newly re-elected Morrison Federal Government will be asked to act to give financial planners the promised full two years preparation time for the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) examination.

Both the Financial Planning Association (FPA) and the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) have confirmed to Money Management that the FASEA timings were a priority issue which had been raised with the Government prior to the Federal Election and would be raised again.

Both FPA chief executive, Dante De Gori and AFA chief executive, Phil Kewin confirmed the importance of financial planners having the full two years preparation time which had been originally outlined by the Government.

Related News:

De Gori said this was in circumstances where the processes and timeline which had been followed by FASEA meant that the time-frame being allowed to planners meant they were only going to get around 18 months preparation time.

The comments by De Gori and Kewin come less than a week after FASEA announced that both new entrants and existing advisers would have until 31 May to notify their intention to participate in the first sitting of the exam and outlined the dates and locations for the examinations.

Kewin said that when the matter had been raised with the Government prior to the election it had received a positive response, and that it would be looking to achieve greater clarity around the time-table.

Recommended for you




Well done at last for being unified on this. However, what is more important is to get the extension on the time for those to "re qualify". The timetable for many advisers to complete is almost impossible when one considers the number of topics and time free to study. Most advisers are full time employed and parents

Speaking to an internal source within the ministers department responsible for financial services last Friday. An assurance was given that the unintended consequences of the FASEA timetable and program were well known and if SCMO was returned, the issues will be high on an agenda to be addressed by the department. Comforting words- lets see if the action follows. I will be following up very shortly.

This is promising and will be welcome, but pardon my ignorance, why is the 'exam' even required, when it appears that the vast majority of continuing advisers need to do at least a small amount of further study anyway? Frankly this exam looks like a revenue-raising opportunity - is this going to fund FASEA? What's really going on???

It is simple. You have to pass the exam and then you have to study the material the exam is based on, and sit the same exam material again. This is called an efficient well designed logical system. AND you are not allowed to ask FASEA to explain this.

Love this comment. It's so crazy you can only but laugh at it.

There is only one purpose for the exam - it's a means of quickly culling Adviser numbers.

This message was brought to you by AMP, proud sponsor of the FPA. Hilarious. The biggest achievement the FPA has had in the last 30 years is the ability to witness a stat dec. How's that FASEA, LIF, Opt In, Grandfathered Commission, Royal Commision, definition of independant....red tape reduction working out for you planners? You do realize it's in the best interest to extend this for the FPA as it's more training material they can sell. I'm pretty confident if the FPA get's involved it will be brought forward. Just ditch these clowns and you guys would be better off.

I happen to be one of those financial planners who doesn't believe the FPA is controlled by product companies. But I accept that perception is ultimately what counts, and there is widespread perception the FPA is beholden to the big institutions. This is fuelled by the FPA's practice of providing bulk memberships and reduced pricing for advisers tied to large institutions. PLEASE STOP DOING THIS FPA!! It is weakening your credibility and ultimately harming all advisers.

There’s always a pile on the FPA. Not sure why. We don’t have the powerful lobby groups like the US do for business and financial services. If you don’t think the initially watered down FOFA under the libs wasn’t a big win you have no idea. Labor’s at fault if you want to blame anyone. Nevertheless I think FPA work hard against an industry riddled with bad eggs and a poor operating model. No advisers wants to give up the money for jam.

Time is what is needed, but only if it results in a full re-set of FASEA into a practical and workable solution. Many advisers, even other professionals and friends I speak to are still scratching their heads at why we complete an exam to prove we are competent to practice only to then have to go onto study bridging courses on topics covered in the exam we have just taken. Absolutely ludicrous and if people's careers did not depend on it would be as funny as a Monty Python sketch!

exactly...and hence my suggestion about funding the FASEA regime - $540/person (sitting (whats the number, 22000 advisers??) - apart from the weeding....

Hi Dave, any chance you could suggest to your insider that the exam be scrapped and the extra study substitutes for that. Then at the end of 2013 everyone will be trained and professional.Just a suggestion

What happens if you are a risk specialist and have been for the last 15 years. I am not across aged care, centrelink etc and don't plan to move down this path. There has to be some give and take on this.

There's not. Lots of study ahead to get prepared unfortunately.

There isnt any such thing as a risk specialist anymore. Same as there isnt a investment specialist. People that work with investing need to be across insurance and vice versa. How can you give advice on risk without taking the full clients cash flows and situation into account? Unless you set up a comparison site like a few others and offer general advice only you wont be here in 4 years.

I work in a firm that provides services across accounting,finance,smsf,tax,financial planning and risk. We all work on clients together and bring in specialists as required. So knowing a clients structure, business,tax position,super,investment,cashflow is already known before we start working on anything.

You dont have to be across everything.. You do have to recognise what you dont know and how to deal with these areas when you are approached by someone needing this advice. Read the FASEA Code of Ethics - it says this explicitly!
This is no different to the medical or legal or accounting professions - if it isnt your area you either find out (by research) or mor often than not these days, refer on the bits you cant do. Why is this so hard for us to get our heads around, particularly when many of us do this now?

Whats the purpose behind only being able to resit after 3 months?

Add new comment