Add new comment

These courses are ONLY approved if the adviser completed every single subject on the list and all the course codes align with your transcript.

Anyone with experience with university programs would know that course structures change from time to time and some students transfer into courses and receive exemptions from certain subjects due to prior learning. Why are FASEA playing such silly games and causing angst for those of us who went early, and completed degrees in financial planning before it was required? Why don't they just approve the headline degree and be done with it? What are they trying to achieve? Are they deliberately creating more work for themselves? Because I can't see any other purpose to their insanely complex approved degree list.

How much time has been wasted? I'm sure the Universities would prefer to allocate their resources elsewhere rather than researching every possible combination of past courses to get them retrospectively approved. A contact at my university is at her wits end dealing with FASEA and I can only imagine her experience is being replicated across all of the other universities.

And what about the exam? Around 600 advisers just completed a joke of an exam, where questions contained 3 sub-questions (ie. 3 opportunities to trick you), many of the questions didn't contain enough information to properly answer the question, FASEA will retrospectively decide on the pass mark and they didn't list the maximum marks for each question which their own legislation requires them to do; so the exam was basically invalid anyway.

The Code of Ethics is completely unworkable in it's current form and with less than 6 months to go, FASEA haven't provided the guidance they promised. So many of us, who may be required to radically alter our business models, with little, if any time to do so.

It's time for the media to start heaping pressure on FASEA because they have completely lost the plot.