Jones canvasses changes to adviser exam
The financial adviser exam may be modified and reduced in size under a review ordered by the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones.
The Government indicated the possible changes as part of a consultation process around financial adviser professional standards.
According to an announcement released today, Jones has asked Treasury to develop a consultation paper on options to streamline the education requirements for financial advisers, including new entrants.
The ministerial announcement said the industry had also made representations on the Code of Ethics and identified improvements that industry thinks could be made.
“I have heard these views and I have asked Treasury to consult on the Code in 2023, after the Government has considered its response to the Quality of Advice review,” it said.
“The exam also plays an important role in supporting the professionalisation of the financial advice industry. The deadline for existing advisers to pass the exam and continue to provide financial advice is 30 September 2022,” the statement said. “After this deadline I will ask Treasury to explore whether there are areas where delivery of the exam could be improved, such as reducing the number of questions.”
“I continue to support the exam as a benchmarking tool which tests the practical application of a financial adviser’s knowledge, including on regulatory and legal requirements, and ethical reasoning. I remain committed to the exam testing these knowledge areas and content.”
What a joke, and an insult to all those advisers who have successfully passed the FASEA exam.
Maybe we might now have an exam that is scoped (anybody recall scoped advice?) to areas of focus. So no longer will a risk adviser be asked about aged care and centrelink and SMSF and investing. Sounds like a breath of fresh air and some logic creeping in. Shame about all those who think academic knowledge is what is all important. PS: I passed the FASEA exam first shot and have a degree, but know that it is experience that sorts the men from the boys.
The exam already is scoped. The scope is law, ethics, and consumer behaviour. The technical areas you mentioned are just contextual settings. You don’t need technical expertise in any area to pass the exam. You need literacy and reasoning skills, and knowledge of law, ethics, and consumer behaviour. Unfortunately some existing advisers just don’t have those things.
Looking at the article – it appears that any changes to the exam will (thankfully) only apply after the September 2022 deadline. So on my reading, a plan for the future to make the exam more relevant to PY entrants (although I may be mistaken)
So after the vast majority of licensed advisers have been forced into completing an exam which you finally admit is flawed you then decide to review it and make changes? What is the point?
The point? The one you’re missing obviously. It was the LNP (with the FPA and AFA supporting all the “professionalism” to make money) that put these flawed “rules” in place – Stephen Jones is actually listening to advisers and bringing some sense to this mess…obviously ruffling the feathers of the those who are no longer the major reference point (like accountant bodies, Choice and FSC – all who have squat to do with representing advisers).
Yes it was the LNP, but the ALP certainly didn’t fight for advisers when it was being implemented, in fact they stated that they would implement the RC recommendations in full before they were even announced. So after the damage is done, the ALP tries to take the high ground and say they are fixing the exam after 15,000 advisers have already passed it and many other thousands have left partly because of the clearly flawed exam. Sorry the ALP can’t take credit now when they were just as complicit as the LNP and every other politician who ignored advisers concerns with the whole FASEA process.
…. and the FOFA process beforehand!!!
Nope, if everyone else has had to achieve the standard then the ones who are left that cannot pass such a simple exam should be moved on. The chopping and changing of the rules are what has stuffed the industry completely. Further double standards just treats the efforts of those that achieved the required standards with contempt.
What always amazes in Politicians looking at the level of Education/Professionalism/Training for Advisors in this case (obviously for other Professions) is that there are no Qualification for Politian’s to seek public office and more importantly to take on portfolio’s when in government or shadow portfolio’s in opposition. What qualifications does Stephen Jones have to be in the position of Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services.
What about the other Ministers and their qualifications to be in their Portfolios.
Just thinking out aloud.
It is premature to revisit the exam at this stage. The industry is only just completed the transition for existing advisers. The new entrant will complete a degree and undergo the Professional Year and mid-way through, sit the exam. This is how the education standards were designed – around the new entrant and they have not been tested. It would seem highly appropriate that the new entrant is tested utilising the existing exam as a check-in on how they have absorbed, not only their degree qualification, but also responded to on the job experience. Remembering once they pass the exam they are into more autonomy as an adviser.
Stephen Jones, yet again, has demonstrated that he knows very little about the financial services portfolio he is minister for.
The complaints about the unsuitability of the exam were from existing advisers. He needs to take a step back and look at the design of the education standards and then decide what may need adjusting, not knee jerk respond to existing advisers that were very change resistant and used their voice to try and maintain the status quo. Existing advisers are no longer sitting the exam so it would be useful for Stephen Jones to understand how the exam is working for the New Entrant.
Spot on. Jones has been hoodwinked by a noisy bunch of under educated sales reps in their 60s, who have tried to claim that a law and ethics exam is “not relevant to them”.