FPA/AFA unity credited with FASEA exam extension

The Financial Planning Association (FPA) and the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) has shared the plaudits for having successfully lobbied the Government for an extension of the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) exam timetable.

In what represented a significant united approach to a key issue for the financial advice sector, the two organisations coordinated efforts to achieve the extension, with AFA chief executive, Phil Kewin, specifically referring to the collaborative effort.

The successful joint lobbying effort came ahead of the FPA and AFA being part of the consortium of advice organisations which last month formally lodged an application with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to constitute a FASEA code-monitoring body.

Related News:

“This was the collaborative effort where, in conjunction with Dante De Gori and FPA Australia, and our respective members who actively engaged their local politicians, we achieved a great outcome for all advisers, their clients and the many Australians who need and deserve financial advice. One message, many voices - that’s united,” Kewin said.

FPA chief executive, Dante De Gori, expressed similar views about the benefits of the two major planning organisations acting collaboratively.

“We’re pleased that Minister Hume has listened to the feedback from our members and been willing to work with the FPA and AFA jointly to deliver a better outcome for all financial planners and their clients,” he said.

The Assistant Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and Financial Services Technology, Senator Jane Hume had been expected to make the announcement during last week’s AFA conference in Adelaide but ultimately did so late on Friday afternoon.

She announced that, under the new requirements, advisers who were registered on the Financial Adviser Register on 1 January 2019 must:

• complete the FASEA-approved exam by 1 January 2022 (one additional year); and

• meet FASEA’s qualification requirements by 1 January 2026 (two additional years). These changes will not apply to new advisers registered after 1 January 2019.

Senator Hume’s announcement was welcomed by a wide cross-section of the financial services industry including the Financial Services Council (FSC) which said it represented a sensible tweak to the reforms and one which would alleviate pressure on the advice industry.

 




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

Pat yourselves on your back guys.. we needed you more when we were getting slammed in the Royal Commission

Fair dinkum, I would like to think the result was achieved because a large number of advisers personally saw their local members PLUS the efforts of the associations.

I think we can all agree FPA and AFA have made a lot of mistakes in the past and are still far from perfect.

However one of the big and positive changes in recent years has been their ability to work TOGETHER. This should be applauded and encouraged. Mortgage broking also has two large rival member associations, and a range of smaller players. But when mortgage broking came under attack, these associations put aside their differences and worked together right from the start. Consequently they have been far more effective in protecting members' and consumers' interests.

FPA/AFA may be late to the cooperation party but they are now on the right track. Well done Dante & Phil.

What a complete load of nonsense from these associations. Hundreds and hundreds of advisors directly engaging their local MP is what has brought some common sense to the table, there was a small army of advisors out there engaging politicians, what a cheek to take the credit. I personally give the associations not an inch of credit, the adviser community's direct action could have done this without them. Its all a bit too late in any case, their unity was completely absent when it was needed and now they are just feeding on scraps from the scorched earth that remains desperately trying to stem the flow of members. We should all be reminded both the AFA and FPA that they are not white knights here, they have a long way to go before they get any credit.

Woop dee doo. Going by the pass rate, the FASEA exam is irrelevant and pointless; a delay means nothing. And it isn't that we haven't had enough notice about getting the degree/degree equivalent. This is just a feel good exercise for the government (which claims they want to reduce red tape) and the two conflicted adviser bodies. I'm not impressed by this at all.

Chris, if you havent done the exam why comment on it? You just belittled everyone that studied hard and passed it with one off the cuff comment thats not based on fact or experience. Not what we need in the industry.

While true, and well done to everyone who has passed, it is an open book exam.

An open book exam is reading comprehension and less about actually testing knowledge. It wasn't designed for people to actually fail.

If they wanted to actually do an exam they needed to make it like other professions where it genuinely weeds out those who dont have the knowledge to advise people on their financial affairs.

Law degree final exams are generally open book. I know because I have sat them. So I can also say that an open book exam will not help you at all if you don't know the content because you haven't studied hard. Anyone who has completed formal studies - at any stage - would know this. The FASEA exam isn't going anywhere. Rather than being unsupportive of those who worked hard and passed, maybe you should batten down and do the work too, instead of complaining.

I sat the exam in the first sitting, without studying. It was simple reading comprehension and no test of actual knowledge other than some of the AML/CTF questions. Simple reading comprehension of the FASEA code of ethics.

The exam achieves nothing. The pass rate being so high clearly illustrates it is to keep up appearances rather than test anyone.

Hang On, so you having completed the exam means that it is not irrelevant and pointless? It remains an irrelevant and pointless exercise as it achieves nothing of note. This is compounded by the very high pass mark; regardless of whether people studied diligently for it or not.

Chris, I have not completed it, I have friends that have. They have all said it was a fair exam. I am busy doing two of the 4 bridging courses at the moment and will sit it in December. It may be pointless for some, but there's no use whinging and whining, just get on with it. It does achieve something of note, it means we get to keep our jobs. I'm as upset as anyone already having a double major in econ and finance, smsf accreditation, asx accreditation dfp 1 to 5 etc. You can either stamp the feet and says its all unfair, or suck it up and just do it. It will be over in 12 months and you can get back to servicing clients. I look at is as a challenge, not as a hurdle on fire.

Let's remember it was the FPA who contributed and got us into this mess. 10 -20 points out of 100 for a Bachelor of Commerce in their original submission to FASEA and Dante is still the FPA. CBA Advice scandal and the FPA = FASEA. A mess that individual advisers have had to sort out. I believe you can't be a professional adviser , or want to reduce red tape and be an FPA member any longer.

Add new comment