FASEA sits on overdue unanswered questions
The Financial Standards and Ethics Authority (FASEA) is sitting on multiple overdue questions on notice asked by senators looking for answers around exam feedback, support, and other pathways into the advice profession.
As of writing, FASEA were overdue in answering five questions on notice by senators Slade Brockman and Benjamin Small.
Small raised the issue of exam feedback that it was “very brief and generic in nature”, and asked: “Is there anything more that FASEA can do to provide more meaningful individualised feedback to advisers who fail the exam?”
This was followed by: “What special support services is FASEA providing to those advisers who fail the exam on multiple occasions?”
Small also queried why FASEA thought life insurance-focused advisers were not at a disadvantage when the exam did not include any questions relevant to those advisers.
In asking questions about the professional year, Brockman asked FASEA if they had examined ways for other graduates to enter the financial advice profession without the need to do a full Graduate Diploma.
Brockman also queried the authority on exam data such as how many advisers were on the Financial Adviser Register who had not attempted the exam.
A spokesperson for FASEA said all the answers to the questions were provided by the due date but that it was now up to the minister to release those answers publicly.
Recommended for you
ASIC has cancelled the AFSL of a Perth financial services firm following payments to its clients by the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort after a failed managed investment scheme.
Bravura chief executive Andrew Russell has announced he will be stepping down from the company, just under two years after his appointment.
Financial advice businesses with a younger, wealthier client base are enjoying higher valuations and increased attention from potential buyers than those with older clients.
A financial advice firm has been penalised $11 million in the Federal Court for providing ‘cookie cutter advice’ to its clients and breaching conflicted remuneration rules.
