2021 has so far been a year of transition for the adviser associations, with former AFA chief Phil Kewin announcing in March that he was stepping down after leading the industry body through “what is undoubtedly the most challenging period the profession has ever experienced”.
Mr Kewin’s resignation was soon followed in July by that of FPA chief executive Dante De Gori, who has presided over the industry association for six years and been a divisive figure among ifa readers.
The moves may have been a sign of new things to come as dynamics continue to change in a transforming advice sector. The forthcoming introduction of the single disciplinary body for advisers within ASIC will remove the need for practitioners to be a member of an industry body as part of their licensing obligations, meaning industry bodies, like advisers, will need to find a way to more clearly articulate their value to the discerning and cash-strapped consumers they serve.
Whilst taking the mantle as acting CEO, the AFA’s general manager of policy and professionalism Phil Anderson noticeably stepped up the association’s pointed advocacy for its members, including taking consumer group Choice and a Labor senator to task for their anti-adviser comments. The AFA also emerged the winner of a recent ifa poll that surveyed over 2,000 readers around which association provides the best member value.
The industry body had a fresh face join its ranks this week with the appointment of former Law Society of New Zealand chief Helen Morgan-Banda as its new CEO. Ms Morgan-Banda herself presided over a tough period of change for the Law Society, with the industry body incurring a $3 million loss during her tenure and undergoing a significant restructure that saw a number of staff and senior leaders exit.
Additionally, the FPA has recently picked up its game with the development of its 2020 policy platform, which sensationally recommended the abolishment of the AFSL system in favour of individual registration of advisers.
What will be crucial for the new industry body leaders in order to properly win the hearts and minds of the industry, however, is collaboration. A constant source of frustration among the ifa readership is the lack of unity in purpose between the competing associations, and how this leads to confusion in Canberra and makes it easier for parliamentarians to divide and conquer.
This frustration is only building as waves of new legislation responding to the royal commission continue to roll in over the course of 2021. In the words of one adviser, “it seems that a consistent theme centres around sole practitioners not being heard or feeling as though they have a voice, with our industry bodies having their own personality crises. I’m not sure how/who/where to lobby or have my voice heard in any meaningful way.”
In the same poll in which the AFA claimed victory, when asked the question of which association presented the best value for money, almost 30 per cent of readers picked “other” – which leads me to suspect their substitute answer was “none”.
If they want to maintain relevance with members, industry bodies need to rally around a common purpose – whether that is through a merger or separate joint taskforce similar to that of the accounting bodies – and make their demands clear to government as it commences work on the 2022 Quality of Advice Review.
The dysfunction of warring factions of the industry, which has largely been put to rest by the exit of the big four banks from advice, has got to go – advisers need industry bodies to step up and fight in their corner for what really matters.
Sarah Kendell, editor, ifa
Since I have been a member of the FPA we have got; FASEA, LIF, FOFA, loss of grandfathering, FP industry dragged through the mud, 1/4 advisers have left, a Royal Commission and continued poor media. What did the FPA do? A few flaccid policy submissions.
No more! The FPA has failed. Whether they even tried is questionable but they have definitely failed.
three words for the associations to follow if you want to survive:
wolf warrior diplomacy.
The role of the FPA is to represent the Barefoot Adviser, AMP and somewhere in there is Advisers that actually talk to Australians and the Australian public….Unfortunately me the adviser, does not give the FPA a spreadsheet of Advisers names and one big fat cheque and compulsory membership.
You cannot possibly represent all of those bodies…without ruffling some feathers, hence there biggest achievement is the ability to witness a Stat Dec. The FPA has resigned itself to become nothing more than a Profit Center, selling conferences and webinars and even during FASEA they saw it as an opportunity to form relationships with Uni’s rather than calling out flaws. I would encourage members to leave the FPA and just join another body for $550 and get your TPB status, because paying money to a body that dosen’t represent YOU and Australians is unprofessional.
I think the main cause of the FPA’s failure as a lobbyist is its credibility as an organisation, not its policy platform or the skills of its lobbying team.
The FPA lacks credibility because it is too cosy with product companies, and it has a hypocritical approach to education standards with its continued support of grandfathered CFPs. The FPA’s attitude is “just focus on doing things better in the future and the mistakes of the past will eventually fade away”. This is not good enough. It will take far too long and shows a lack of commitment to professionalism.
If the FPA is to be taken seriously as a lobbyist it needs to actively clean house first. Get rid of all product provider relationships, including bulk discounted memberships for advisers licensed by companies that distribute inhouse products. Rescind all grandfathered CFPs, until they complete a degree and the CFP Certification unit.
Sorry, damage done and no reversal in the short term. Our industry has a long way to go before we turn around and recover and will be slowed by the splinter groups aka professional bodies with different ideas.
I am an over 55 year old Adviser who has passed my FASEA exam.
I am also twice vaccinated so I am not a risk taker and am happy to protect my loved ones. I was indifferent between AZ and Pfizer.
My choice: vaccinated or unvaccinated. Be safe or be at risk.
As a one time member of at least 5 industry associations I am loyal to none.
If there was hopefully one day less confusion and one single choice: be a member of the Professional Association or be at risk, I would choose to be a member every time.
Be safe or be at risk. Protect my clients and my loved ones
well said Sarah, pity this was not done a few years ago
The FPA have failed in their advocacy. They are more interested in pleasant morning teas with ASIC and Treasury than actually representing their members.
The FPA are not so much impotent, just not prepared to do any effective work.
Their problem is their contradictory mandate, representing product providers, licensees and advisers. Complete conflict of interest.
Professional Associations are there to represent the public that is what professions do….while they must support members it is the public who are the first consideration. Have a look at the definition of professionalism if you dont agree with this
Correct and the FPA represents only themselves.
The trouble starts when a professional association fails to take into account the views and interests of its members. If you’ve got deeply aggrieved members, then something has gone very wrong.
I have directly asked a couple of FPA Directors to consider employing a Canberra insider from the Pharmacy Guild, Australian Medical Association, one of the Accounting bodies, the Law Institute or Australia or equivalent for the FPA CEO job. We need success in Canberra. The profession has become political and heavily policed. No other profession is being put through the red tape nightmare like we are right now. This has to change. The pendulum has swung too far.
There cannot be a unified voice while there are at least four strands with completely different priorities:
Product providers and their associated advisers who don’t mind being nudged.
Large and medium licensees who control advisers with the advisers paying them.
Advisers who want the good old days back.
Advisers who want to be professionals.
Individual licensing is the one measure that could come closest to unifying at least one interest of all advisers: Keeping their individual licence.
I tend to think the licensee, super funds and product providers are Ugly enough to look after themselves. Could not the solution be to have an association that looks after, just one strand…the Advisers and Advice needs of Australians and let the licensee fend for itself.
Finally FPA members are getting the message…..for 10 years I’ve been banging my head….thank you. I was told to leave when I said those exact words…. Well said.