Latest Poll – Can You Get 65%?

Are you confident you could achieve at least a 65% pass mark for FASEA's proposed Financial Adviser Examination?

  • Not sure - I need more details (47%)
  • No (27%)
  • Yes (26%)

We’re keen to know whether you think you could pass FASEA’s proposed Financial Adviser Examination.

Last week, the Authority released a consultation paper that contained specifics about the proposed exam that every current adviser must take and pass before 1 January 2021 if they wish to continue delivering personal financial advice.

While the industry awaits more detail around the exam and its processes, including sample questions, we’re interested to get a sense of whether you think you’ll be okay to pass the exam, given what you know today.

The proposed exam requires an overall 65% pass mark, as well as some other minimum benchmarks (see: FASEA Releases Draft Adviser Exam Guide).

We appreciate there remains significant opposition among some advisers about whether they should be required to undertake this exam in the first place. However, given you have no choice, and irrespective of your view on its necessity, we’d like to know how you think you’d go.

You’ll also need to pass it on your first attempt, unless you can prove exceptional circumstances, such as illness, so it’s critical that most advisers get it right the first time.

…And the AFA has its own concerns about the perceived difficulty the exam may present to advisers (see: AFA Concerns on FASEA…)

Tell us what you think and we’ll report back next week…


  • John

    The reason I have voted NO is down to the fact that I am a “risk only” adviser and will certainly fail any questions on financial planning.

    • Jimmy

      the exam, as currently proposed, will have NO specific product / area specific questions. It has been designed so that people who dont advise on risk, super, SMSF, investments, margin lending or any other specific areas of advice arent disadvantaged

      • Squeaky_1

        What? Sorry but doesn’t make sense. Please re-read your comment and clarify Jimmy. If I am missing something in the way you’ve phrased the comment please advise.

        • Old Fella

          Jimmy is right Squeaky. A read of the proposal shows it is more based around professional ethics, knowledge of Corporations Act, reasoning, client behaviours etc. That is why I believe even an old fart of a Lifey like me will be able to pass it. As long as common sense marking applies. The basics of being an adviser. Let’s face it, even Doctors go to Dr Google these days, so we don’t need to know every product in our head. But we do have to know how to operate professionally.

          • Squeaky_1

            Thanks Old fella. As long as they don’t make us remember 500 pages of the corps act and all the rest. I still say we need a qual for risk only advisers for the ‘degree’ or whatever they call it. The degree for the investment advisers is not at all appropriate for us. I assume they still require this unnecessary ‘degree’ ON TOP of this FASEA suggestion/proposal?

    • Chris Craggs

      John, if your licence is restricted to risk only products, then I accept that you are a risk only adviser. My experience with advisers though is that they have full licence.

      • Squeaky_1

        YES, but where’s the damn risk exam/qualification. Are John and myself the only ones screaming for it? Where are the life companies voice in this . . . CRICKETS! Disgusting!

  • ken

    65% of what?? There is no where near enough evidence of what the final “wash up” of this will be. If any common sense reigh’s here there should be heaps of changes.
    Only time will tell

    • Squeaky_1

      Yes, you’re right Ken. FASEA, FPA et al should say for WHOM they are proposing these exams – RISK advisers or INVESTMENT advisers! Totally different discipline. May as well bring the real estate sales boys and time share guys across, too, if we aren’t being fussy about what content and what people we will be testing and on what disciplines/subjects. Just ridiculous they don’t separate this. Apples to apples, please FASEA, FPA, ASIC.

  • Squeaky_1

    The answer depends on who you are – RISK adviser OR INVESTMENT Adviser (AKA: Financial Planner). Each is a totally different discipline and should be tested separately. I cannot comprehend why ASIC, FPA et al are continuing to lump risk advisers in with full investment advisers (FP’s). Different job completely. It is, of course, to make it easy for the regulators to police one regime instead of multiple. Why does a risk adviser need extraneous knowledge of CD’s, currency exchange, derivative and so on? It is patently ridiculous! This idiocy by the regulators will drive risk advisers from the industry – UNNECESSARILY. Just make a separate qualification for risk advisers – not rocket science.
    Oh and just a quick shout out to the life companies – thanks for backing your life advisers in this – NOT! Where are you when we REALLY need your ‘support’?? You bleat about being “passionately committed” to the adviser distribution channel (paraphrasing most execs here) but you are silent in the debate when WE advisers need you to champion the case for a separate RISK licence and qualification. WHY? Do you really want to get rid of us as many postulate? Show you mean what you say and get involved.

  • Walker

    To provide risk advice properly, an adviser must also thoroughly understand superannuation law and estate planning. If not, then you cannot recommend any insurance funded by super. Good luck with that…