The Financial Planning Association of Australia (FPA) and the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA), are hoping to amalgamate in time for the new year.
FPA CEO Sarah Abood and AFA CEO Phil Anderson spoke to ifa to detail how this merger will benefit the members.
Ms Abood took note of feedback from both regulators and the government that describe the varied advice and advocacy points they receive from the profession. She hopes to see “a singular set of suggestions” to bring more steadiness and authority into the sector.
“I think, that alone gives us a much greater chance of achieving the positions that are really important to our members and to the profession.”
Mr Anderson noted that the distinctions between the AFA and FPA, while clear within trade media, is less so in mainstream media. This is where a combined expertise is most needed, he explained.
“If they have a definite go-to body to get comments and feedback, and for us to work constructively with them to promote reform initiatives… having that single voice will make a difference.”
Ms Abood added that observed reductions in the financial advice workforce was an incentive for the proposed merger.
“It’s made us, on both sides, think really deeply about what is the best way to use members’ funds and how we can ensure that our members are going to continue to be represented effectively.”
“We certainly feel that a merger is the logical next step,” she continued.
“We can combine the resources of both the associations and really importantly, create a united voice and stronger advocacy for financial planners and advisers.”
Mr Anderson went on to say that the merger will allow for the expansion of their two “advice-focused” associations, and will refine their skillset.
“The important thing is that this is bringing together the two largest professional associations in the financial advice space,” he commented.
“We’re never going to go to one association that represents all financial advisers, but this is the most significant and material consolidation of the association market. It will make the biggest difference of any merger that could take place.”
If all members vote in favour of the proposed merger, the unnamed new association is intended to launch on the 1st of January, 2023.
Three weeks before the expected commencement, the government will be releasing the Quality of Advice Review. According to Ms Abood, “the timing couldn’t be better”.
She said that the review is an opportunity to ensure “recommendations from the report that are really important to our members can be delivered.
“We have an unmatched opportunity right now to get changes made that will really benefit the profession and benefit consumers, and we must seize that opportunity,” she said.
“We’ve got to make sure that the Quality of Advice Review actually leads to substantial change to deliver those improvements that we actually need. We can’t take any of that for granted,” Mr Anderson concluded.
Lets be realistic, this has come about because of dwindling adviser numbers and their membership base now means they are not sustainable individually moving forward, and a merger is a necessity. I just hope that they do more for the advisers that remain….
My concern is that the advisers voice will be further drowned out in favour of the institutions by this merger. I’m sorry, but I don’t see any advantage for advisers in this merger.
Sorry but the merger will just increase the size of the waste of space. Neither the FPA nor AFA have been succesful in speaking for advisers since 2004 and have just been a voice for Institutions/Insurers until the Royal Commission and then nobody after that. If they had done their job they could have pushed back on the garbage elements of SoA’s that make them ineffective, the LIF and FASEA changes and lobbied for the backbone of the Industry (the IFA advisers) to be listened to and supported. The QAR is just another example of a review where only the Institutions/Insurers & Industry Funds were consulted.
I both agree and disagree. Yes I too think they have been a waste of space. But not for the reasons you put forward. The associations have been weak in helping in transitioning the industry forward. They have acted more as sounding boards and avenues of complaint for those who are struggling with the necessary changes to improve the industry’s professionalism. They’ve all too often taken the easy road and not pushed back against these people and businesses. They have failed to sell. promote and educate reluctant advisers to accept positive, often difficult, change. Absolutely they should lobby against unfair and unreasonable legislative changes and provide united professional feedback to government and promote the value of PROFESSIONAL advice to the public but lobbying against sensible change devalues the industry.
Therein lies the problem. We should be a profession, not an industry. Unfortunately they capitulated on everything that lead to advice becoming ridiculously expensive to the point where only HNW clients can be serviced.
What is the point of promoting professional advice to the community if the community cannot access advice because:
(A) it’s too expensive
(B) the remaining advisers are all at capacity and cannot take on more clients.
(C) costs are only going up with a government legislating the financial advisers out of existence – with no fight back from these two ‘adviser associations’…
Jen, what does success of becoming a Profession look like for you – 12,000 Financial Planners acting under BID/Code of Ethics and untold amounts of Personal Financial Advice being provided by Product Providers with no BID? What is your goal? It is becoming clear that Government, Treasury and in deed FPA are very supportive of many others being able to provide Personal Advice without the need for a Profession – so what is the goal?
If it needs to be explained then no answer is required. However let’s just say that at the moment we are an association of people with disparate qualifications, abilities and skills.