Last month, the Financial Adviser Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) released details around the mandatory exam for anyone who wants to continue providing advice, requiring them to pass the exam by 1 January 2021.
The latest guidance has indicated that the exam will go for 3.5 hours, including 30 minutes reading time, and will comprise at least 70 questions with a mix of selected response and written response question types.
FASEA has appointed the Australian Council for Educational Research to develop and deliver the exam. Each person completing the exam will have to pay a fee of $540 excluding GST.
In its submission to FASEA, CA ANZ has called for recognition of “the long hours of rigorous study that is required to gain and maintain CA membership”.
“CA ANZ believes it is unacceptable to expect its members to sit through yet another exam – they have already completed a degree and post graduate studies, all of which has been examined – with such a minimal course outline,” said CA ANZ tax leader Michael Croker.
“If the exam must be done, it should be done properly, with appropriate detailed course outlines and course objectives for each of the three domains nominated.”
The professional body also criticised the lack of detail provided around the exam so far, calling for FASEA to release more course notes to alleviate concerns from members.
“We note FASEA has released three domains of knowledge and skills as set out in its PF006 Examination Policy but does not intend to provide examination preparation courses,” the submission said.
“We believe these three areas are very aligned to traditional financial planners, which is not in line with ASIC’s requirements for some of our members, particularly those operating under a limited AFSL.
“The exam is causing great angst amongst our members and the advice industry in general, and therefore FASEA must provide enough course materials and resources, in an appropriate timeframe, to ensure the purpose of the exam is achieved.”
CPA Australia has also made a submission to FASEA, calling for the deadline for the exam to be extended considering how the exam is not expected to be available until mid-2019.
“The exam must be successfully completed by 1 January 2021, while the bridging units must be completed by 1 January 2024. Therefore, it is likely [that] existing financial advisers will not have completed their required bridging units, including the Ethics unit, before sitting the exam,” it stated.
“This is even more likely given the examination will not be expected to be available until mid-2019 and the required bridging units are also still being finalised and therefore not available for existing advisers to commence their required studies.”
This seems to have evolved into a turf war.Only public servants could be so stupid to as to implement such onerous requirements even when not providing product advice.
A SMSF is a financial product.
Like the skill of a planner to churn clients into platforms and insurance products in order to boost trail. Let me see balanced plus insurance. Next!
Only the FARCEA morons could force an exam to be required to be completed 3 years before they force the same topics to be studied.
Aren’t we just sooo lucky to have these wonderful FARCEA academics being so conflicted in lining their own pockets with forced education and such ingenious implementation.
Only a government body could be so completely freaking stupid.
Would have thought an exam would be a great opportunity for accountants to showcase their knowledge and skill.
CA study has no relevance to financial advice laws. Does my financial planning degree count for anything for the CA program?