Less than a third of advisers pass Feb exam

The percentage of advisers who passed February’s exam, the first one run by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), has fallen to 32.4%.

Some 333 advisers sat the exam and 32.4% passed (108 candidates).

Almost three-quarters of candidates were re-sitting the exam for at least the second time. This compared to 52% of candidates passing in the November exam, which was the lowest pass rate of all exams run by the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA). 

Related News:

Since the exam was introduced, almost 20,000 advisers had sat the exam and 91% of them had passed.

Over 15,600 were recorded as current financial advisers on ASIC’s Financial Adviser Register (FAR), representing 90% of current advisers on the FAR.

Over 2,260 were ceased advisers on the Financial Adviser Register (FAR) and may be re-authorised in the future while over 480 were new to the industry.

ASIC said candidates would receive feedback from Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) if they had been unsuccessful. 

The next exam sitting would be held on 12-16 May and enrolments would open on 4 April. 

Recommended for you




Representation of the adviser still trying to pass. This should have never been extended into 2022 and educations standard also should not be 'back-tracked'! Not helping our industry move towards a profession in any way, shape or form and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

We're really at the dregs now aren't we.

So essentially you get a bunch of people together that have failed the exam at least twice already and you expect good thing? I don’t think so, these people have already struggled to pass, it is unlikely most of them will still be here post 1 September!

Get rid of the grubs from our industry. It’s beyond embarrassing now.
We keep letting people do exams until they pass. On what planet does this happen .

I think it might happen on Uranus!

Agreed. When you get people complaining they need multiple attempts to pass an exam about law, ethics, and consumer behaviour because it's not relevant to them, they really shouldn't be pandered to.

How about an exam that just focuses on looking after clients as I've done for 25 years without a complaint. This Industry is being destroyed !

Yes, destroyed by people who can’t pass an exam

So 25 years of compliance and audit reports should have made the exam a non event. Interesting how some can't remember or learn 12 standards in an open book exam but will be here next week saying how complex a Risk PDS is. I would suggest we look at an annual exam and see how we go then.

Here here! BIRMIE's comment above is the best on this page! Common sense at last. This current FARCE-IA exam is an irrelevant and damaging bad joke. Make it relevant to what advisers do and create a relevant one for risk advisers. Very prescient of you Birmie, I hope the right people take note but I doubt it - no way to 'save face' for them now!

One adviser I know has a physical ailment that means he cant type answers quickly, even though his mind knows the answers. how about a verbal option for people such as this person?

Didn't the adviser write a salary continuation policy or a Death/TPD policy for himself? If the adviser is over 65 and still wanting to work what an unsuccessful career they must have had.

That's probably the top 10 harshest ageist comments I've read. People over 65 are more than capable of working, and work because of the enjoyment. Sounds like the only person "working" is yourself and you might want to switch to something you enjoy and you'd never work a day in your life.

Old Bob, it's not an ageist comment, but an accurate comment. You need to read more.

I never said that the adviser is over age sixty-five. Never assume. People with disability can still contribute to society. Hasn't died, so a death policy is useless. Certainly not totally and permanently disabled, and as for salary continuation, personal ethics would prevent a claim. Still a contributor in many more ways than just advising.

Financial adviser and personal ethics? Now that's funny. So this "adviser" is saying it's not in a clients best interest to have a salary continuation policy if the client has personal ethics? Weird. Lucky this "adviser" is failing the FASEA exam. And remember Old Fella, you need to have at Death cover to have TPD cover. Have you passed the FASEA exam Old Fella?


You don't need Death cover to have TPD cover.

You do need an equivalent (or greater) amount of death cover to get TPD cover in most union super funds. I suspect the comment was made by a union super fanboy/girl/trans who neither understands nor cares how the real world works, because they are going to impose their own agenda on everyone sooner or later anyway.

Yes, poor Old Fella not understanding TPD cover. Shame for his clients.

You need to fact check Anonymous. Firstly, my comment on salary continuance is that the adviser would not claim as he is not ill or injured. Failing an exam due to poor dexterity is not in the definition of any policy that I am aware of.

Secondly, you do not have to have death cover to have TPD (or trauma) cover. Several insurers and even one major superannuation fund allow TPD without death cover.

I passed the FASEA exam in 2019. Not that an exam proves much, but I am re-assured by your un=educated comments here, that my product knowledge and empathy for others is clearly greater than your's.

So Old Fella, what is this mysterious "physical ailment" has that he couldn't find an insurance policy for. Maybe you could organise something for him before you retire in the next few years.

Before reading the comments above let me say this. I sat the feb exam and failed. This was my 3rd sitting. the questions were the polar opposite of prev. exams and the practice exam. Questions i had never seen in my life nor situautions i would ever encounter.

OK now i'm coming back in.
1. My father was dying of cancer in 2019
2. My mother was dying of cancer in 2020
3. My autistic son has daily melt downs & my wife is bed bound with chronic migranes.

So which smart ass wants to meet up and have a chat. address available on request

Ignore the trolls. Most financial advisers are compassionate, decent people and our thoughts are with you and your family. I hope you pass the next sitting. Please share more about the change in questions, as many of us would be interested to know more about what is going on. Perhaps a confidential chat with this publication would be worthwhile? We need to shine a light on the injustice and degradation inflicted on our profession.

Have you thought of having a Zoom call with (or appearing) on Dr Phil, Oprah, Ellen, etc.?

Hi, this is Laura, I'm the editor of MM and would be interested in your thoughts on your exam for a follow-up piece we are writing, if you wanted to contact me directly. Thanks.

Perhaps Laura you could do some investigative journalism and find out why a CEO from AMP dosen't need to sit an exam and escapes scott free, how a guy called Dover get's booted from the industry and hundreds of advisers are unlicensed... and finally look at the relationship between the CBA and the FPA during the very first productivity review where the FPA got members, CBA got out of jail and Advisers got an FASEA. I would much rather read about that than hearing from an Adviser tell us the exam was "challenging" at a time the dog died, the house burned down etc etc. Cause unless we start asking the hard questions this exam will be an annual exam and Advisers will be continued to be kicked in the guts every product failure and Australians will remain priced out of advice. Unless I want the Gestapo (ASIC) on my back we advisers can't ask these hard questions and we need your help.

Hear, hear, Old Bob. Laura this is Money Management, not Fairfax or ABC. Please focus on representative facts, rather than emotive stories that distort the issue.

Those are easy questions Old Bob:
1. The CEO of AMP is not a financial adviser, hence does not need to do the FASEA exam.
2. Dover ceased their AFSL.
3. CBA and FPA need to explain their relationship if they haven't already. I don't know if you can send a bank to jail.
4. Financial advisers got FASEA as a move to professionalism.
No need for any investigative news feature.

So start studying for that Annual exam then. because;
1) AMP and whatever large insto will blame you, along with untouchable unlicensed middle management.
2) Dover ceased there AFSL not of their own choice. Yet large AMP lied to ASIC 22 times and remain. Which means your AFSL will someday give you short notice
3) You can't send a Bank to jail but members pay a fee and those members need to ask questions.
4) Financial Planners got FASEA because CBA, NAB etc during the CBA advice scandal said it's not us it's YOU, and Advisers lack of education. The FPA agreed saying education levels need to increase. That and Professionalism are not the same.

I can appreciate some advisers are happy charging $15,000 to ultra high net and don't care about Australians but others feel differently.

See Old Bob, no investigative news feature needs to be undertaken. Simple questions, simple answers. Just like the FASEA exam.

Happy to meet up for a chat. Those excuses, is why you were given so long to sit the exam. The first sitting was June 2019 with many attempts over that period both online or in person. Some four years now and several years with multiple attempts available. They're are plenty of people that suffered more than yourself, me included. I've seen University students able to find 3 hours to sit an exam in a war zone and you're telling me you can't do a three hour exam over 4 years when you're even given 3,4, multiple attempts at it. Sorry about your family issues, yes, that is terrible sorry to hear, but really your "excuses" just don't cut it.

The number of potential attempts available up to the end of 2021 was actually 8 Bob. There was never a maximum number of attempts rule, just a 3 months minimum between attempts rule. I've lost track how many attempts are allowed in the 2022 extension to the extension, but I'm guessing it's at least 2. So make that at least 10 attempts allowed all up.

THE question is why won't they give us our exam papers back? If you can find it version 1, 2 &3 of the practice exam changed their answers to identical questions. I KNOW i passed my 2nd attempt, because the answers were what i answered when they changed to the version 3 practice exam. Thre is a brick wall up here. I tried for weeks to get that exam paper back, round in circles emails pushing you to other emails back to original email.

They have set it up so it does not fall under FOIA so i will never know the truth. I am out now anyways selling book and afsl in next few months. Off to work in an industry with no red tape

The exam was done on a computer thingy, there was no paper.

Add new comment