Brisbane-based adviser Jamie Forster, a life risk and SMSF specialist at self-licensed firm Elston Assure, aims to establish a project whereby the industry can provide free advice to “financially disadvantaged people who may have a legitimate insurance claim” but are not engaged in professional planning and claims management services.
Speaking to ifa, Mr Forster said the project is receiving some traction from fellow advisers but that assistance from the industry bodies is required in order for the project to become a success.
Mr Forster contacted the Financial Planning Association (FPA) – of which Mr Forster is a member – and the Association of Financial Advisers in October 2012 regarding the initiative but neither have responded, he said.
In the case of the Financial Services Council (FSC), Mr Forster received a formal letter declining the offer and referring him to the AFA and FPA as appropriate bodies for his request.
“While broadly supportive of the concept, we feel that this type or service would be more appropriately offered by individual advisers (perhaps centrally coordinated through the AFA or the FPA), unfortunately at this time this is not something that the FSC or Lifewise would be in a position to establish or manage,” said FSC senior policy manager Holly Dorber in the letter, obtained by ifa, citing “limited budget and very limited resources”.
While he says the industry bodies do not have a “moral obligation to participate” in the project, and he applauds their work on the Future2 Foundation, Mr Forster said their support would be an appropriate “service to their members” and would also assist with the public image of the advice industry.
“This service would be provided sincerely and transparently without expectation of financial reward of any sort,” Mr Forster said.
“Such an obviously altruistic service that provides real and measurable value would provide great marketing and public relations for the industry as a whole and the AFA and FPA as organisations as well as associated kudos for members of those organisations.
“There seems to be a lot of talking but not a lot of doing in relation to pro-bono and community service.”
Mr Forster said he is still hopeful of a response from the FPA and AFA and that the two organisations will “work jointly on this”.
However, just last week AFA chief executive Brad Fox, upon launching the organisation’s latest white paper, spoke of the need for a new approach to insurance claims.
“The industry needs to launch something,” he said. “Lifewise hasn’t changed the underinsurance issue in its three years so either the message needs to change or we need a different vehicle to do it.”
In February, FPA chief executive Mark Rantall told ifa of the importance of pro bono work in the industry, pointing to the FPA’s natural disaster relief advice program.
Nice to see you have fired up the debate necessary to move this great initiative to the next level Jamie. My submission on this topic to the FSC last year also went nowhere, so well done.
Some comments from the legal profession that may assist you better understand ‘pro bono’in the financial planning sector:
1. Pro bono does not equate to free services. They must be for the public good and so motivated.
2. To have the pro bono ethos is an important ethical value of a profession. It is what distinguishes a profession from a mere business.
3. Whilst pro bono at an individual level is laudable, if it is coordinated and made visible at an organizational level, it works better, is more efficient and makes the whole profession look better in the eyes of all its stakeholders. Its actually good for business!
4. It requires leadership from the profession’s top members to champion this ethical value.
5. FPs did some great pro bono work following natural disasters. Keep it up. Recognise it. Embrace it. Believe me, it will strengthen your profession.
John Corker
Director
National Pro Bono Resource Centre
UNSW
Hi marksman
Whilst I agree with the sentiments of what is almost certainly an apocryphal story, I don’t believe that a speech about misuse of public money is analogous to a member of a non-government association expressing an opinion on how that association best uses their money.
As a member of the FPA I believe that the organisation should use some of that money to communicate the value of advice and to enhance the public image of the members of that association.
Putting aside the community value of such a service, it is my opinion that a it would go a long way to (i) communicating the value of advice and (ii) enhancing the public perception of advisers in the community.
If I didnt believe that the associations could extract value from this I wouldn’t have suggested that they participate.
As a member, you have an equal right to object.
David
I agree with you.
My thoughts are that this service would be aimed at people who had insurance (perhaps in an employer sponsored super fund) but did not have an adviser and did not have the money to pay for an adviser to assist them.
That is, it would be for people that (a) did not have an adviser and (b) were financially disadvantaged.
It is certainly not aimed at anyone with the means to pay their own way, whether they had an adviser or not.
First up, I refer you to Davy Crockett’s “Not Yours To Give” speech to Congress (Google it). Although it dealt with giving taxpayers dollars to what seemed on the surface a most worthy cause, the underlying principles apply to this current situation. If an adviser wishes to engage in “pro bono” work, that is an individual decision – not an industry body obligation. In passing, around 30% of my advice is “pro bono” anyway, so I don’t need anyone telling me to “step up to the plate” in this area.
I thought that’s what we get paid to do or maybe some just take the money and give very little service
Hillross and AMPFP are currently working with the Cancer Council in the provision of pro bono assistance to those in need. This has extended to seminars.
Whilst I appreciate the coverage given to this idea by IFA Magazine, the headline is a bit mischievous.
Whilst I did pitch this idea to both the IFA and the FPA and didn’t receive a response from the FPA, I did receive an acknowledging of my email from Richard Klipin. Richard left the AFA shortly after that and I heard nothing further.
Whilst I have taken the non-response as an indication of lack of interest I certainly did not intend to be critical of either organistion am not so self-important that I took their non-response as a “snub”.
In fact, quite the contrary: I am a member of the FPA and frequently attend AFA functions and am generally impressed with their work for advisers.
Since my original LinkedIn post I have had the AFA contact me in relation to this topic expressing interest. I am still hopeful that this will be an industry-wide initiative with advisers being represented by their associations.