In correspondence seen by sister brand ifa, Sydney adviser Hilton Woolf wrote to Liberal MP Craig Kelly earlier this month following two failed attempts at the FASEA exam. Mr Woolf said he had been given “no feedback regarding how I could improve in order to pass”, and had already passed the bridging course required to meet his education pathway.
“I am enormously distressed to find myself in a position where I might need to abandon a career that I have devoted my life to as I am unable to re-qualify,” Mr Woolf said.
The comments follow previous reports by ifa on the rising number of queries licensees and training providers are fielding around the lack of feedback provided by FASEA during the exam process.
Mr Woolf, who had been a financial planner for 35 years and suffered from a number of medical issues, said the government needed to “consider the impact and ramifications of imposing this exam on all members of the industry”.
“I fully understand the need to always improve standards, particularly given the scandals that emerged in the industry. However, for younger professionals, the FASEA exam is not as challenging as it is for someone my age and with my health challenges,” Mr Woolf said.
“There needs to be regard for individual circumstances including track record, number of years of ongoing compliance, initial academic qualifications and a range of other factors.”
In response, Mr Kelly said he agreed with Mr Woolf “100 per cent” and that “many of my colleagues feel the same”.
“We will be pressuring for change of this absurd policy,” Mr Kelly said.
FASEA came under fire around its handling of the exam and implementation of industry standards more broadly at a recent hearing of the House Standing Committee on Economics, of which Mr Kelly is a member.
FASEA chief executive Stephen Glenfield told the committee around 400 advisers so far had had to re-sit the exam.
“What you see with those [re-sits] is their marks do increase, so [the advisers] have been doing the work to lift their standards,” Mr Glenfield said.
“It’s an inevitable part of this exam that not everybody is going to be at the level required, so the exam is doing its job to identify those people.”
Don’t let the bastards beat you Mr Woolf. Never give up. A failed exam does not define you.
Peer review is a better way of ensuring the standards are maintained than an exam. People answering correctly in an exam situation can be totally different from people acting correction in real life.
But the whole gravy train is now set up to fleece more money from licensees to undertake more training, do more preparatory work, pay more fees to the regulator. We are already drowning in red tape. If the government wanted to save money they would abolish this scheme and move to peer review/audit process where ACTUAL is examined, not THEORETICAL.
Credentialism. Will they insist on degrees in nappy changing for parents?
Does Kelly forget that his government was the one that brought this legislation into being? Mr Woolf operates his own AFSL and you’d think that if any adviser was going to pass this exam with flying colours it would be someone who runs their own AFSL…the fact that he’s failed it twice implies that he shouldnt be.