Speaking on a recent episode of the ifa podcast, CEO of AFA Phil Anderson explained the reasons for naming the combined AFA/FPA entity the Financial Advice Association of Australia, or FAA for short.
“The name came out of quite a comprehensive piece of work that was done with an external agency, surveying members and also focus groups with particular important stakeholders. So, it was looking at positioning the new association as one that’s representative of the professionals that make it up, and it’s about having that clarity of purpose and professional name,” Mr Anderson said.
“We’re very happy with the name that’s been pulled together. It does talk to what we’re all about, which is financial advice and an association to support financial advisers, and obviously we operate in the Australian environment.”
Responding to industry criticism of the name, particularly surrounding the use of the word ‘advice’ rather than ‘adviser’, Mr Anderson said the name is meant to appeal to all within the advice sector.
“I think that it is all about financial advisers, but let’s not lose context to the fact that we also want to appeal to paraplanners. We want to appeal to other people who work in the advice profession,” he said.
“But I think there’s no question that financial advisers are at the core of the reason for this association to exist, but it is more broadly about the financial advice profession. That doesn’t say that we won’t be absolutely focused on what our members need and want from their association.”
Mr Anderson also addressed the possibility that members could choose to vote against the AFA’s merger with the FPA.
“We want this to be an outcome that has overwhelming support from our members. It’s not something that we want to have a small number of people participate in the process. That doesn’t give us a mandate. It gives us approval but not necessarily the strength of the mandate,” he said.
“It is always a possibility that members could decide against it. We certainly hope that’s not the case, but this is a decision for members to make, and it’s a decision that they need to make in the context of the key priorities that we have for the new association.
“That’s about advocacy, about leading the advice profession, speaking with a single voice, working with government to achieve the changes that we think must happen, but it’s also about the economic viability and sustainability of the merged association.”
Hear more from Mr Anderson here.
,,,Can I suggest an alternative name more fitting…?
The “Good” Financial Advice Association of Australia, or GFAA
“….surveying members and also focus groups with particular important stakeholders.” So care to name the particularly important stakeholders and who it is they are important too?
Of all the things impacting financial planning in the past month I am concerned that people would care would an incompetent and irrelevant organisation would be called. Realistically both the FPA and AFA meet this criteria at present so combining them will achieve the same end result.