FASEA has confirmed it will be releasing the much-awaited results of its inaugural June 2019 adviser exam series in mid-August, following what it refers to as ‘…a comprehensive marking approach and analysis.’
The Authority has also confirmed it will be adding six new regional exam locations for the September 2019 exam series as adviser demand continues to build. The six new regional centres are:
- Gold Coast, Qld
- Cairns, Qld
- Newcastle, NSW
- Wollongong, NSW
- Ballarat, Vic
- Bunbury, WA
FASEA says each of these six new locations will have at least two sitting days, based on demand, with up to two sessions per day providing additional opportunities for advisers to sit the exam. It says additional regional locations will also be added for the December 2019 and February 2020 adviser exam sittings.
Taken from its website, the current options for advisers looking to sit the exam in September or December 2019 are:
The Authority also noted extended registration openings for its September 2019, December 2019 and February 2020 exams, where advisers are invited to register during the following periods:
- September 2019 exam: registrations open from 30 July until 30 August
- December 2019 exam: registrations open from 30 July until 8 November
- February 2020 exam: registrations open 2 December 2019
FASEA CEO, Stephen Glenfield, said “We have been working closely with ACER and industry to expand the geographical and frequency of exam opportunities so as to optimise advisers’ ability to sit the exam and help them comply with the education standard in 2021.”
If it takes 2 months to mark the exam then the last opportunity to sit it would be October 2020. The supposed “two year” window for advisers to complete the exam has been effectively shrunk to about 16 months due to yet more FASEA incompetence.
Why is a slow and expensive “comprehensive marking approach and analysis” needed anyway? FASEA is not providing performance feedback on individual questions to each applicant.
They could easily mark all the multiple choice questions by computer in a day or two. Short answer questions for each applicant then only need be marked up to the point where the pass threshold is reached. Any short answer marking that takes the applicant’s result beyond the pass threshold is a waste of time and money.
It’s pretty obvious ‘Anon’, they are taking a very close look at the results because they don’t want everyone to pass. It will make them look bad. They equally don’t want too many to fail, or they will soon be out of a job. That’s why the pass mark is so opaque. The FASEA website states the ‘starting point’ for the pass mark is somewhere between 65% to 74%, but they may change it from one exam period to another depending on the results. This is so wrong, it is laughable. Plus we don’t know if you must get all three true/false answers correct to get any points for those triple-banger true/false questions. So I’m guessing that’s another thing they will be deciding upon. They will slice and dice the results to get the outcome they want. The problem is, the first batch of advisers who sat the exam would have been a very strong, technically sound, confident cohort. That was certainly my experience. So I am gobsmacked at FASEA’s behaviour. This is the organisation that is charged with the responsibility to improve our ethical standards! It is beyond a joke. The exam was supposed to set a minimum benchmark for technical knowledge. But instead, it has been reduced to a competition.
Again the politicians should be held to account for this stuff up. We should all be making our feelings known to our local federal MP’s.
I believe it is to ensure all exam markers are awarding points consistently across the board, so that all advisers receive fair assessment
And at $600 an attempt, it depends how much coin they want to make out of it as well. This is a complete laughing stock of revenue raising. A compulsory exam completely undermining all previous education and experience for all advisers. A do or die exam in this circumstance is incredibly inept. We all go through rigorous compliance procedures first and foremost but to be subjected to this expensive experiment in tomfoolery is completely disjointed to almost anything else. No feedback for the exam, the upfront expense, limited spots in limited exam centres, limited sittings, every few months only….its almost cheaper to complete a Kaplan module than attend this exam and who knows what the pass mark is, and you wont even know until a couple of months after you’ve sat it. If you do fail you need another $600 to sit again without knowing the pass mark or having any feedback from your previous sitting. Which other industry would lay down and cop this treatment??????? Why are we doing it and how can we fight this outmoded over-reactive kneejerk response to what is happening with our industry. No wonder planners are getting out.
Is this to help the advice businesses and the clients, or is it just a media witch hunt to get the industry in a different light while not threatening the livelihood of those at the top making these completely rash decisions. Its a huge win for FASEA and FPA with none of there positions threatened while making “strong and decisive cut throat decisions” while they sit in their ivory tower overseeing the dismemberment of quality businesses with quality advisers and quality families and well serviced clients put to the board in the name of made up ad hoc shoot from the hip brutal procedures. Its really appalling.
Perhaps the AFA could write a submission to someone about it.
That seems to all they ever do.
In the last 5 years no one in government has takes any notice of them.
Comments are closed.