Sasbo Opinion Poll Request

My take on this arguably neccessary difficult subject , is that the regulator has got all the time in the world to entertain corespondence from various "concerned"representative bodies, BUT we ONLY have up til feb 2012. The regulator may even correspond with you directly after feb 2012( NOW not the REP BODY) .So , let us not shoot ourselves in the foot( feet rather) or play with a running chain saw sitting in our elegant wooden office desks, by complaining til the last BITTER end. the language, grammar etc used in the questions is utterly... The fact that no discount if you re write kills me !! the length of some questions requires the mind of an English scholar not speaker. This is what I have done. read all the suggested material from page 1 to last page X2, FICA x1. Assured myself about numbers dates days fines... attempted self test questions from various sources. failed some mock trials!!! You will notice as you answer that you are always left with 2 "correct" answers. my trick was to then ask myself if the stem of the question comes from the FAIS or GenCODE material perspective !!! the answer would be arrived at once i have establised the source i.e FAIS OR GenCODE material. I applied the same on the Actual exam paper. On the actual exam the lead pencil is also for marking questions that you will attempt later, not because you dont know the answer but they take longer to READ. Good psyching up strategy. This tech may not help if you have not find an exam date! if you have find a date ,your own resolve and exam tech wil definately see you thru.As a third English language speaker not scholar, I have written and passed both exams KI and RE 5 with all the "dreadful double negatives" but at a financial cost to my business. I am one of the many committed black financial planners.

Barendjf wrote a pm to forum admin:

I agree with the sentiment that the RE exams are to tough for the ordinary one man show broker.
We do not employ representatives and all the other things that we have to know.
The whole RE system can be made more user friendly.
All we want to do is to serve our clients and to make a living. This we have done for more than 40 years.

Please get this the “ghost” from or backs!

Thank you.

cecelia wrote to admin forum:
I have receintly wrote RE and KI. I found both exams extremely difficult and the questions in some cases confusing. It sometimes takes longer to try to understand the question, than to select the correct answer. The examples used in the questions are unrealistic and I do not think one would ever be posed with those type cenario's.
The time allowed was enough.
I cannot see how call centre angents, not being in the business for that long, be able to understand, comprehend and pass the exams with a 65%

Hmm I dont quite concur with Andrew but empathise with is sentiment. Some facts that I am aware

a newly employed representative has 2 years to complete his RE 1 rep or Ki exam whilst we were only able to do it from october last year so have 10 months short fall in the requirement

The registrar is on the opinion that board notices, FIAS, FIC acts and general codes of conduct (X4 if you know) as in the Juta material is all the reference material that is required. Is he aware that the legalese is difficult to understand and the average category 1 accreditated planner is not conversant with that level of communication and the exams are structured in the legalese and as such difficult to understand. lets not even start looking at the member of the black broker forum members who are on a hiding to nothing

The re exams are required to test the planners understanding of FAIS FICA and general codes of conduct but not in a tricky, legalese context. Heck explaining the role and responsibility of Ki's or representative can be done easier explaining in plain language what needs to be done. (The companies act was simplifiedto accommodfate this even though it has now caused major problems with explanation for lawyers and anyone else who is lucky enough to have to explain it)

I have passed both the Ki and reps exams last year november when material was a bit thin and since then facilitated both ki and reps preparation for a number of providers (Nedbank have statistics that show 66% of nedbank writers have passed after facilittion compared to the stats that show about 30000 have written and 4500 have passed)

I could spend another hour explaing why.

I have the credential to criticise this process as an assessor, moderator with a number of SETA's and two post grad qualifications that have enabled me to facilitate right upto NQF6, running my own brokerage, internal compliance officer approved by the FSB

I am still stunned at left field the registrars questions come from with double negatives!!! (what is not an incorrect answer!!!!!)that do not necessarly test the qualifying criteria to adequately demonstrate the outcomes, but come from somewhat left field and include questions that require reference to acts that are not on the curriculum like financial intermediaries protection of funds act!!!!! re enforcement committee!!!! for example and briefly with out detailed explantion about the finer details the Enforcements committees determinations being unlimited but specififed penalties, compensatin costs, standard costs and extended costs. I have had to add this to my material as I am aware that this question may appear but beg the4 question why

The pass rate is improving as I speak, as participants are taking this serious and understanding that some or other intervention explaining what is required is imperative and this will further strengther the registrars resolve that his thinking is correct.

Stats I have access to futher explain 1500 brokers per quarter are leaving the industy and 909 FSP's currectly sit in suspension or withdrawal status. No wonder the bigger comanies are squealing that production is down as the distribution force is reducing daily.

I believe the questioning criteria is 100% correct but the questioning rational needs to be moderated by a subject matter expert that has hands on experience regards the legislation and the practical application of the legislation form a simple plain language perspective. the queation begs why did the regulator design and develop the plain languagte guides (X3) and the preparation guides if he did not already identify that it needed to be in plain language, why the exams in legalese and the tricky questioning

Dont get me wrong this process is required 1000% not 100% but why at higher or degreed type level and not at a practical plain language matric NQF4 level. test the same outcomes without the trick or difficult to understand questions with doube negatives!!!

Andrew I agree this will go nowhere and is a way to vent frustrations

cheers
Andre Steyn
Post graduate diploma in financial planing and Professional Training Consultant.
Cell: Personal 083 654 2079, Office 031 765-5719/864, Fax 086 510 0670 e mail andre@lasteyn.co.za or admin@lasteyn.co.za
Postal .O Box 749, Hillcrest 3650. Office : 35 Gillitt Road, Hillcrest, 3610.L.A. Steyn & Associates cc, Licensed Financial Services Provider FSP No 1628. Commissioner of Oaths No 9/1/2 Pinetown, Internal Compliance Officer no 1065. Assessor no 04A1300244, Moderator no 04M1300148 Accredited with Council for Medical Schemes No 128604091 Registered with Inseta, Bankseta, Services Seta

Forum Admin wrote:

Sasbo has sent out a request to lobby for a review of the RE deadlines and standards. If you would like to add your comments please download the attachment below and forward onto the address provided

Sasbo
Fourways
20 Kenilworth Drive
Kloof

7th June 2011

Re Fais Exams

I booked to write the KI exam on the 5th April. I attended a workshop where the FSB stated that the exams are designed to require 10 hours of learning, so I spend at least 12 hours learning the weekend before the exam. A day before, I got a call from the FPI saying my exam was cancelled because I was the only candidate, and that I’d be informed of when another was available. By the beginning of may I’d heard nothing, although I’d sent at least 3 emails requesting a date on which I’d be writing.

Finally on the 4th of May I phoned and after being sent from pillar to post, I was informed I could write on the 5th. I spent another 4 hours that day preparing for the exam and felt I’d done what was necessary.

To date my results are not available, but again I phoned the FPI and after being put on hold for ages and speaking to 7 different people, I was finally informed that I’d failed and only got 57% (highly confidential, since I was not allowed to know???!!!).

I am a member of Mensa, have 20 years experience in the industry as an advisor to real people in the real world. I also enjoy the legal aspects of my occupation.

It appears that the very companies/organizations involved in the RE exams are also the ones making the money. It’s in their interests to keep the standard at such a level, that unless one spends money on courses to prepare oneself for these exams, the chances of passing are minimal.

The whole purpose of the exercise I thought was to ‘professionalize’ the industry. Well why not start at home? The run around I got from the FPI was a far cry from ‘professional’, I can assure you. The ethics of the companies/organizations regarding the standards, even the necessity of these exams leaves many questions begging. The effectiveness in the protection the FSB is supposed to be providing the consumer (Sharemax, PIC etc) is very debatable.

In the US the regulator is funded by the tax man. The tax man, i.e. the consumer therefore demands results! The regulator knows that the product providers and service providers (note the differentiation – it’s not a co-incidence) are what he is supposed to prevent from abusing the consumer. The system there makes sense. Ours? Where else in the world are the criminals forced by law to pay the police. Where else are doctors required to pass a test on the medical schemes act and if they don’t all their qualifications and experience are ‘null and void’?!

I know I’ve wasted my time writing this because nothing is going to change, but it has made me feel a bit better.

Regards

Andrew M van Dam CFP®
Certified Financial Planner™
Mensa Member 10053
Fellow of the Financial Planning Institute 9603250
Accredited Health Care Broker Licensee BR2032

Intelligent Asset Minders cc CK2001/049132/23 T/A
FinBofs.com
Financial Services Board Authorized
Financial Services Provider FSP322
Medical Schemes Council Accredited
Health Care Brokerage Org2656

Tel: +27 (0)31 764 1645
Fax: +27 (0)31 764 1646
Mobile +27 (0)82 956 0393

Sasbo has sent out a request to lobby for a review of the RE deadlines and standards. If you would like to add your comments please download the attachment below and forward onto the address provided