Speaking to ifa sister title Accountants Daily, Dr Raftery said the association’s foray into financial advice is out of step with what its membership wants and is willing to pay for.
The original price and package for prospective licensees was also not in line with market or member expectations, he said, which is consistent with the findings of the ongoing review into CPA Australia’s operations.
“CPA priced themselves out of the market in terms of being a dealer group for accountants,” Dr Raftery said.
The idea of members competing with their own association if they are independently licensed is also problematic, as is throwing the CPA Australia brand into the financial planning realm, which has been marred by high-level controversy and scandal for the last five years.
“There is such a negative undertone in financial planning in general, it had a huge impact on the overall CPA Australia brand,” Dr Raftery said.
“I think a lot of people think there’s a huge opportunity in the financial planning space … but a lot of accountants are moving away from financial planning.”
Dr Raftery said he was “genuinely surprised” to see the CPA Congress in Melbourne last week well-attended and home to a positive tone.
“It was very much business as usual for members,” he said.
“I did notice that in terms of traditional CPD there was a lack of ethics and governance topics, and I did have a bit of a chuckle about that. But other than that, I was suitably impressed.”
The comments follow the independent review into governance issues at CPA Australia, which found a number of conflicts of interest relating to the CPA Australia Advice business.
Adrian Raftery here. I would have sledged myself with the way that this article was written. Quite disappointing how some stories are framed & quotes taken out of context to attract click bait. Oh well – you live and you learn!
I read the article and just dont get where the venom in the comments below comes from. Maybe I’m reading the article after it has been amended by the authors/editors….
I’m sure we are all happy (and expectant perhaps) to hear [i]your [/i]version, Adrian, after your comment.
It wouldnt be your first negative, sweeping statement of the industry..
Hats off to you Adrian.
Shame on you gutless keyboard warriors who leave comments and haven’t got the spine to use your own name.
You having a laugh moderator? I did put my name to the comment above…!
Oh, the irony. Tell you what Matthew, we’ll all post with our names once we know if you will get past the new education requirements for 2024.
CPA attracted so few financial advisors that almost nobody in the wider community even knows that CPA are playing in that sector. And since most of the Naked Folly wasn’t branded with CPA, again, people generally don’t make the link between the TV/book and CPA either. Pissing away $12M out of a loan of $20M from the parent Company for running CPA advice says more about the weak calibre of the Board and CEO, CFO and COO than it does about the brand. Up to the new board to show they are cut from a different cloth….
And to think, CPA markets the CPA designation as an MBA-lite, future leaders etc etc. And as you say, this particular leadership group burns through $12m out of the $20m loan with comical results. Credibility?
If it was FP, there are some broadsheet journalists who would be all over it….But in this case, we have…crickets.
Next headline:
“Financial planning hurt by ‘negative attitude’ of Associate Professor”…?
Dr Raftery, such an erudite fellow, particularly on FP matters. Despite that, he somehow missed that the Emperor was naked.
Nakedness aside, Mr Raftery does refer to CPD and ethics, so I do wonder whatever happened to APES230? Particularly as CPA used APES230 as the major difference in their dealer group offer (which attracted how many ARs all-in-all?).
Dr Raftery’s insights seem symptomatic of a dangerously misplaced desire to look inwards – a safe and comfortable place to live when the future looks uncertain. Financial Advisers know this feeling well, and over the last 10-20 years most have learned to adapt and prosper. It’s time for some Accountants to do the same. The CPA ‘brand’ wasn’t damaged by venturing into the ‘financial planning realm’, but it’s influence and relevance will likely erode if its members choose to stop evolving because of a minor setback. I would ignore Dr Raftery’s vaguely timid outlook, and instead find an experienced Financial Adviser to work with (or self-licence) – either way, redouble efforts, be brave and press ahead. Cheers.
This guy is an absolute “insert whatever here”. FP hater who masquerades as an educator. Takes ever opportunity to dig the boots in to an industry that feeds his family
Of course, it was the financial planning industry’s fault! Not CPA’s! Of course not! Has CPA ever done anything wrong…erm…..
Seriously, CPA Australia did more than enough damage to their own brand without the help from anyone else. If you can’t make your business work with the backing and support of the ASIC head honcho himself, you’re never going to make it…..
Haha spot on Jape! I like this comment too..
“I did notice that in terms of traditional CPD there was a lack of ethics and governance topics,” thats because time and time again they have shown they have no ethics nor understand governance..and they have the audacity to look done their nose at the Financial Planning industry… Great Southern , Brad Sherwin and a few others come to mind as Accountants who have wrecked havoc on the general public with trust me I am a an accountant, I know better.
I nominate this piece for BS article of the year! As if CPA Australia Advice need to look anywhere else, for the cause of their brand and business woes, than their former CEO and Management. You are miles off here Rafferty. Your mark is E-
PS, no one cares that you were “suitably impressed” by the Congress and making such a comment just reeks of arrogance.