A significant number of aspiring financial advisers are questioning the clarity and structure of a crucial exam following a staggering failure rate of one in three candidates. In June, the Financial Advisers Exam, overseen by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), recorded a failure rate of approximately 33%, prompting calls for a reevaluation of its content and format.
Among those voicing concerns is Hannah Elliott, who, along with 79 other candidates, did not pass the exam. In a candid post on LinkedIn, Elliott expressed her disappointment, stating, “It hurts. And I won’t pretend otherwise. My plans have been pushed back, and I’m still coming to terms with what that means for me.” This sentiment resonated with many in the industry, including qualified advisers who shared their own experiences with the exam.
Elliott’s frustrations are echoed by others who have taken the test. One commenter remarked, “Honestly, I don’t know how I passed when I did it,” while another described the exam as “one of the most illogical exams I’ve ever sat.” The feedback highlights a growing belief that the exam’s structure could benefit from increased transparency without compromising its standards.
Exam Structure and Content Under Scrutiny
The Financial Advisers Exam is a mandatory step for trainees seeking a financial services license. Candidates must complete a year of structured work experience, which is divided into four quarters. The exam, administered by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), consists of at least 70 multiple-choice questions covering three main areas: regulation and legal obligations, applied ethical and professional reasoning, and financial advice construction.
According to ASIC’s official handbook, the questions are crafted by specialist exam writers and reviewed by external experts. Despite this, many candidates feel that the guidance provided remains insufficient. Elliott noted that the current framework presents a “dump” of legislation with little clarity on what will actually appear in the exam. “You’re going in essentially blind,” she said, highlighting the challenge of remembering multiple pieces of relevant legislation.
Feedback following the exam is also a point of contention. Candidates receive only a pass or fail mark, with limited insights into their performance. “Did I fail by one mark, or did I fail by 20?” Elliott questioned. This lack of detailed feedback could hinder aspiring advisers in their preparations for future attempts.
Calls for Reform and Support
The broader context of the financial advisory profession in Australia is also concerning. The number of financial advisers has plummeted from approximately 28,000 in 2019 to less than 16,000 in 2025. Legislative reforms intended to bolster the profession have altered the exam format, replacing short-answer questions with more multiple-choice items. According to a submission by the Financial Services Council, these changes aim to facilitate entry into the profession while maintaining educational standards.
Despite these adjustments, the average pass rate remains around 70%, with no more than 77% of candidates passing in any single exam cohort since the reform. Elliott believes that better support for candidates could help address the dwindling number of advisers. “What are we going to do to change that?” she asked, advocating for a system that aids candidates without diluting the quality of knowledge required to succeed.
In response to the criticism, ASIC defended the exam’s structure, stating that it establishes a consistent minimum standard of knowledge for applicants. An ASIC spokesperson noted that questions undergo rigorous quality assurance processes, including expert reviews. However, they acknowledged that providing detailed feedback beyond a simple pass or fail would require legislative changes to the Corporations Act 2001.
As the debate continues, aspiring financial advisers like Hannah Elliott are determined to push for improvements. She advocates for transparency in the exam requirements, stating, “I’m not asking for answers to be given out. I’m just asking for some transparency around what is required to pass, so you can have something to aspire to.”
The call for reform resonates not only within the community of aspiring advisers but also reflects a broader concern about the future of financial services in Australia.
