Adviser exam to become 100% multiple choice
The financial adviser exam is set to become 100% multiple choice as the Government moves to clear away some of the remaining inefficiencies left by the now-defunction Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) regime.
The Treasury has released exposure draft legislation facilitating the shift to multiple choice alongside changes which will make it possible for new entrants to financial planning to sit the exam at the same time as completing their studies.
The changes are contained in the Corporations (Relevant Providers – Education and Training Standards) Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Determination 2023.
The Treasury explanatory materials stating that the changes are designed to imp[rove efficiency of, and time access to, the exam via amendments which ensure the exam “comprises only multiple choice questions and ensuring eligibility to sit the exam is not contingent on the person having already met the qualifications standard.
“Exams based on multiple choice questions create efficiencies by enabling computer marking to replace manual marking,” the explanatory materials said. “This reduces the cost of administering exams and improves response times for exam candidates to receive their results.”
“The current exam eligibility criteria which restricts access to the exam based on the person having already met the qualifications standard is causing unnecessary delays for new entrants seeking to enter the profession.”
“Removing this restriction provides flexibility for candidates to sit the exam at an appropriate time. For example, potential new entrants could sit the exam while they are completing their studies. This also improves timely access to the exam by reducing bottlenecks and potential delays associated with conducting eligibility assessments for each exam candidate prior to each exam.”
The materials noted, however, that all relevant providers would still be required to meet the qualification standard in addition to passing the adviser exam in order to provide personal advice to retail clients.
The materials explained that the current exam is constructed to contain at least 70 questions, comprised of at least 64 multipole choice questions and at at least six written response questions.
The proposed new structure will still contain at least 70 questions but they will all be multiple choice.
Is there really any point persisting with this exam now that all existng advisers have passed it? It is a basic non technical exam that only covers law, ethics, and consumer behaviour, all of which are compulsory subjects in the degrees new entrants must now complete.
The exam that really tests adviser technical competence at a post grad level is the optional CFP exam.
Wow big issues Canberra, NOT.
How about dealing with the stupid, unreal world FARSEA code that is so in-practical only Canberra buffoons could write it
maybe the fact that there are somewhere in the mark of 5 million Australians in need of financial advice, with only 15-16,000 financial advisers able to service those customers. These idiots just don’t get it, the thickness and depth of red tape in this industry will continue to harm the consumers who desperately need financial advice for the bullshit Australian market around Insurance, superannuation and investing as a whole. But hey we’re amending the exam, proactive government!!!!
The bank’s government lackeys are just preparing the ground by making the exam easier to pass for all their “qualified advisers” who will be able to give personal advice to bank and super clients. They’ll be able to say “our qualified advisers sat the same exam as all advisers”.
The banks have played the idiots at FPA/FAAA and AFA like an out of tune bull cello – HNW clients are wholesale so little compliance required and now the vulnerable lower income clients are again going to be legally preyed on by super funds and the banks.
No wonder Australia sits so low on the international corruption index…
They are likely dumbing down the exam so the “qualified advisers” (salespeople) will be able to pass.
This is the Government covering their butts. Moving from an exam style designed to cull and fail people…now moving to a conventional exam style that most people would be used to. What needs to be asked is why did they write an exam in this style? What was the required fail rate to be deemed successful?
Were you the Adviser or the family of an adviser that committed suicide because you had to be a statistic ?
Shocking, but not surprising. When Treasury want something done that involves protecting / benefiting themselves they make it happen very quickly. When there’s no benefit to themselves or the incumbent Govt. of the day, things move at a snail’s pace, if at all.