Speaking to media during the AFA’s 2015 National Adviser Conference, Mr Fox said his members are currently a “mixed bag” of advisers who are happy to change and adapt to the Life Insurance Framework, but there are also some that “don’t want to change at all”.
“This morning we asked members how are they feeling about their future – mad, sad, glad or scared – and the overwhelming show of hands showed they were glad,” Mr Fox said.
Regarding those advisers who don’t want to change, Mr Fox said that is completely fine, adding that the AFA will be ready to help them transition their business when they are ready.
“Our job is to help them, when they are ready, to recognise they need to move forward,” he said.
Mr Fox added that the association has been doing all it can to listen to its members, but also to provide assistance for those looking to adapt with the reforms.
“If an adviser has been in a world, for a predominantly long period of time, of using upfront commissions and now has to change, they need help,” he said.
“While we are still working on the framework – which [is a] regulatory battle – on the flipside there is the part that we have to keep building the bridges to help people who want to change their business and move into a different environment.”
Mr Fox also explained that the six-month delay to the start date of the LIF will give enough time for advisers, licensees and companies to make the appropriate adjustments they need to move forward with the framework.
“There is absolutely no way that a decision made in November or December will be implemented by 1 January [2016]. Most participants that are licensed are licensees and insurers have said to us it takes close to six months to change systems [and] compliance of this scale,” he said.
“I think the majority of advisers will be able to adapt their game plan for their business within six months, but it will be difficult for some if they haven’t started thinking already and are taking action around it,” Mr Fox said
Brad, most of the ‘unwilling to change’are the MOST EXPERIENCED ADVISERS at the coalface today. The message is simple, these are not “changes” but is a DISASTER in the making. No group of people can prosper when income is savagely cut, AND there is a possibility of repaying all or some of earned income for a period of up to 3 years. Are the AFA leading by example, and reducing income to all executives and staff from July 2016?
Why any AFA adviser member that disagrees with the AFA misrepresenting and screwing advisers in the LIF, would continue to be a member and pay the AFA to represent the institutions interests ahead of advisers is beyond me ?????
I entirely agree with Michael Harrison’s comments regarding this matter.
The perception from government is that there was a strong consensus view put forward by associations representing the majority of their members views.
The AFA did not survey their members with an online questionnaire asking to indicate their preference as to how they wanted to be represented by their association and then collate that data and present the majority position.
Naturally, there would have still been some members disappointed because their view may have contrasted to that presented, however, at least the members of the AFA or no doubt the FPA would have known the majority view of their own membership.
The AFA and the FPA represent their membership and it is entirely inappropriate for either of them to now be pushing or promoting a divide between those who are “on the road to change” and those who remain unwilling to change, when the latter were provided no opportunity to have their opinion or reasoning formally counted when represented at the negotiation table by their relevant association.
Anyone can say they listened to their members, but without a documented record of exactly what position the members wanted to have presented, it is unjustifiable as there is no real evidence to form a basis of accountability.
Advisers are experts at adaptation, however, this is a story about the manipulation and control of corporate market power without any identifiable or measurable advantageous outcomes for the end consumer. The measurable advantage will be in the bottom line profit delivered to the shareholders of the banks and the insurers.
This is not about negativity or a total resistance to change and not having a mature enough business model to deal with it, this is about the plain and very transparent facts…end of story.
Whilst it’s easy for Mr Fox to refer to a “mixed bag” it would have been better if the AFA had asked members their views before agreeing to the FSC solution.
At a meeting with some advisers yesterday the Minister made it quite clear that the Government was staying with the FPA/AFA/FSC Proposal recommendations.
The Minister stated on numerous occasions that the entire industry agreed to these recommendations and thats why they are maintaining their position.
There are numerous advisers that are part of the ‘entire industry’ that weren’t asked and don’t agree.
Still working for the enemy Brad , you obviously have not been talking to the majority of Risk Advisers, so please don’t comment on our behalf as you have already proved how incompetent the AFA is at negotiating us a good deal.
I wonder which institution Mr Brad Fox will migrate to at some stage with a plum executive position, given his significant role in screwing his AFA member advisers in favour of the institutions ?