FASEA Confirms 90%+ Advisers Pass First Exam Series

FASEA has released details of the results of the June 2019 round of the FASEA adviser examination, in which more than 90 percent of advisers passed the exam.

In what it referred to as result highlights from the initial exam series, a release by FASEA this afternoon noted:

  • The exam was held in nine centres across Australia from 20 June to 24 June
  • 579 advisers sat the exam
  • Over 90 percent of candidates passed the exam

The Authority advised the exam was subject to ACER’s comprehensive marking approach and is marked to credit standard, but where the pass rate will vary with each exam.

FASEA Chief Executive Officer, Stephen Glenfield, said: “FASEA is pleased with the implementation of the first exam and congratulates successful candidates on completing an important component of their education requirements under the Corporations Act.”

Glenfield added that unsuccessful candidates are able to re-sit the exam and these advisers will receive guidance on which knowledge areas they need to improve to enhance their ability to pass at a future sitting.

FASEA also stated it has received more than 1,000 enrollments for its September and December 2019 sittings.


  • Rob

    As Gomer Pyle said to the Sarge. Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! We’re smarter than they thought we were!

    • I’ll bet they were expecting more to fail… but it augers well for those of us sitting in the future.

      • Rob

        True Lindsay. Overall though another example of them pegging us all wrongly. How often have we proved them as such, but fallen on deaf ears. Colossal waste of ours and our clients time, not to mention the financial cost.

      • James

        I don’t think these results should be any surprise. First round entrants can be profiled as confident, practive advisers. If I were FASEA I’d be waiting for the round 3/4/5 results before making any interpretation of the data

  • I am not sure I would be so confident. I may be wrong but I took the exam and it wasn’t exactly easy. I am also not sure if that first group was representative of advisers as a whole.

  • How many of those sitting were recent uni etc graduates with all the academic (instead of practical) learning still fresh in their minds?

    • Of the 9 at my site there were two aged 50+, the rest were 30s and 40s.

  • The Patriot

    i am very surprised at the pass rate. I am also pleased. let’s see what the next lot is like…also, it seems there is feedback on areas of failure – that is a positive move and I applaud it. Why was that denied leading up to this point?

  • Squeaky_1

    What an absolute sham and waste of valuable resources and time. Why do I say that? Because I guarantee you the dishonest advisers passed as easily as anyone else so what does it all prove – who does it benefit? ANSWER: NOBODY except the princes, pollies and industry bodies to make them look like they’re doing something. Don’t drink the cool aid people and don’t buy into this idiocy and fraud where the bureaucrats (bought and paid for by the companies) rip us off for exam and resit fees and steal our lifeblood of legally grandfathered commissions away to feather their own nests and look good. Client best interest? – this has ZERO to do with that! I am beyond – WAY beyond – disgusted how this is happening and how many advisers are going along just to get along and not make waves. This is exactly how many dictatorships have begun – as an example of this only.

  • Squeaky_1

    So when do the exams start for the risk advisers? What uni courses do have they for us, you know, important things that are relevant to insurance specialists? What are they called incidentally, anyone know? Any simpleton knows the current qualifications required for investment advisers are useless to a risk adviser as they’re wholly to do with investment. When do we get some exams so that WE, Risk Specialists, can also be regarded as ‘Professional’. Why would I need to do this current requirement set which is irrelevant to 90%+ of what I do for clients each day. Let me state the bleeding obvious: something very , very wrong here FASEA, AFA, FPA, life companies and legislators. Follow the money, they say, if you want to find out where the problem lies. Hmmm.

  • Gruntled

    This announcement raises a few concerns.

    1. No mention is made as to whether anybody failed the exam. If no-one has failed then perhaps the unclear exam instructions have forced FASEA to deem those that would otherwise have been adjudged as ‘failed’ as ‘non-failed’. Can we be told?

    2. It would be an absolutely astounding result in a University subject to have 90%+ of a class of 500 get credit or better grades. It would be an understatement to suggest that something about this exam is not what it is being reported as. Either
    a. the questions are too easy, or
    b. they sprinkle the results with ‘pixie dust’ to regrade the marks to get the grades they want.

    3. If subsequent exams use a non-randomised selection of questions from the original pool of questions or regrade the results differently after each exam this would suggests that a student could fail or pass an exam depending upon which exam they went to. Would such an impacted Adviser have a legal case for discrimination that they could pursue.

    Having said this I congratulate those deemed to have successfully passed the exam.

    • Squeaky_1

      Gruntled, You raise many good points. In response all I can say is that, these days – in this industry – nothing would surprise me. Much disappoints me but nothing would truly surprise me./ I say this against the backdrop of so much governmental, political and corporate manipulation of the solid core functionalities which made our industry great.
      There is no industry anymore – only manipulations and the outworkings of manipulations. Witness the war against risk commissions, disregard for corporation law in the killing of investment/super commissions, witness the further flagrant disregard for corporations law with the 2 year responsibility imposition. Witness the imposition of mandatory exams for advisers that have their only reason for being to make pollies and corporates look like they are doing something with no benefit whatsoever for consumers. Witness the forcing of genuine, honest and highly experienced older RISK advisers to do FULL financial planning degrees simply to stay qualified to advise clients on risk products. Witness a royal commissioner who has zero clue about how life insurance is sold, why it should be sold and the fact it still does indeed NEED to be SOLD. Witness that same royal commissioner breaking beyond the bounds of his stated mandate and taking it upon himself to up-end the life insurance industry from a base of no experience, best interest of consumers or common sense.
      Indeed the commissioner showed zero common sense, instead exposing his own rarefied views from a white ivory tower totally devoid of any concern for ordinary Australians and their need for financial protection through appropriate insurance.
      These are the impositions of a sovereign state gone crazy with self aggrandizement and ‘justifiability’. The ‘client best interest’ is not served by a single one of these impositions, indeed there is MUCH client detriment caused when their trusted advisers of decades are forced from the industry they once loved simply to satisfy the whims of politically motivated career academics that care not for client best interest – only their own furtherment.
      Why some incorruptible law maker has not seized on this travesty for the fraud it is and corrected it is a black mark against free enterprise and consumer protection.

      • John Galt

        Standing ovation for that one Squeaky! Spot on!