The Financial Planning Association of Australia (FPA) and the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) have announced their intention to merge, today confirming both have signed a memorandum of understanding and will seek feedback from their members before inviting them to vote on the proposal.
In a media briefing today, FPA chair, David Sharpe, said both groups are committed to delivering a “stronger united voice for the profession” and hope to officially launch on 1 January 2023.
AFA national president, Sam Perera, added that “extensive consultation” will commence between the groups, including a new name for the merger.
However, it was noted that the current intention is for FPA CEO Sarah Abood to take on the role of CEO in the merged company, while AFA CEO Phil Anderson would work as general manager.
It is expected that members of both associations will vote on the proposal by the end of this calendar year.
“Effective advocacy is consistently the number one priority for members of both associations and a merger of the FPA and AFA would create a single association which would speak for the profession,” Mr Sharpe said.
“By creating a unified voice, the merged association would add clarity and power to the positions it takes and avoid duplication of activity and erosion of its messages. It also increases the likelihood of achieving crucial advocacy positions.”
Mr Perera added: “The AFA has a strong background in representing members from diverse groups and this would continue within any new association.
“The memorandum of understanding aims to safeguard the interests of members and includes the AFA nominating four directors on the transitional 12-person board.”
The FPA has been quick to notify members, today also issuing a notice asking for feedback on the proposed merger saying it would increase “the likelihood of achieving crucial advocacy positions for you as a member”.
Earlier this year, the industry bodies dismissed speculation that a potential merger was on the cards.
In March, speaking to ifa, AFA CEO Phil Anderson said: “The message from both bodies was that we are working closely together on a range of matters, including having joint meetings with politicians and the regulators.”
“We also have a joint taskforce that is focused on the future of life insurance advice. This approach is, in part, responding to the view that financial advice needs to speak with a united voice, which is a message that we have been getting from Canberra for some time.
“We will continue to work together on issues, where we are aligned and where that is to the benefit of members.”
Similarly, the FPA board said in a statement given to ifa that it has close ties to all associations within the financial services sector.
“There are no immediate plans for any mergers, although we do believe that some consolidation of the associations representing financial planning and advice could be a positive move for the sector.”
If the merger succeeds they will need to come up with a new name that reflects which Australian members they are intending to represent so if that happens to be licensed financial advisers & planners then here are some suggestions to kick things off…
AFAA : Australian Financial Advice Association
Or
AFAPA : Australian Financial Advisers & Planners Association
Or
AFPAA : Australian Financial Planners & Advisers Association
how about Industry Super Fund representative Association? I think that would more accurately reflect their future.
No need for ISF to have any association as they have union lobbyists in Canberra who governments have listened to and acted upon their wishes…
Great. Now they need to be clear about who they represent. Is it going to be an adviser association representing advisors, or are they representing product providers and super funds, or are they representing consumers. If you try to be the jack of all trades you will end up being the master of none.
Don’t care. Not a member of any association as I don’t see the value any of them provide.
Dante De Gori. quote…..”we don’t represent advisers solely..we represent a range of participants such as super funds”….meaning they don’t represent you…they sell you a CFP logo and a few webinars. They’re more interested in looking after there largest customer AwareSuper. Any merger needs to address that core problem.
In reality did De Gori represent advisers at all?
The FPA have succeeded in fooling planners into believing they represented them. [b][b]The FPA position is they do not represent Financial Planners…[/b][/b] they represent a range of participants in the industry including large super funds. Insiders have told me they need to push that more ..over time that means the party with the biggest pocket or the party that can deliver the most members. The resulted in conflicted outcomes and failed representation. If a merger was to occur it needs to be very clear what they’ll stand for, who they represent. We cannot have these conflicts going further.
If this merged association represented advisers only I might be interested, but as both organisations just represent product manufacturers who see advisers as a distribution channel, then nothing changes. United voice? Don’t the insto’s already have the FSC? Nothing to see here.
Should have been a united voice when FASEA was introduced
Wonder if the fees will come down with all that scale ???
They are keeping both the CEO’s so probably not
Another reason I am happy I moved over to the AIOFP.
For someone to advocate against the FASEA exam for you 3 years down the track?
Anonymous – your correct, but this is still more than the FPA and AFA correct?
To be fair, this should have happened years ago. That says a lot about how proactive and useful both associations/institutions are. Sorry – true.
While it appears to have some merit I am wondering how the FPA will fit into a model of representing advisers. That has not been their priority in the past. Can leopards change their spots?
Now that the banks aren’t funding them maybe ?
but AwareSuper until recently recently was still paying membership in bulk.
it’s for the new industry fund members of course … but about time!!!
April 1st is many months away….???
Advisers have no voice!
So basically this has already been agreed to by the bureaucrats and getting members to agree is just a formality?
I cannot see how either of these bloated organizations have done much for the advisers they claim to represent.
This is a very sensible evolution. Both associations today have much more in common with each other and the combined collective efforts will better serve the profession.
Great idea! We really need a consolidated voice.
Now we know why the AFA CEO left and went back to NZ.
It makes sense, it is hard for financial planners to be heard when there are so many industry bodies. I would hope though the new association is more aligned to the voice of financial planners, rather than the licensees and super funds.
mmmm, 2 similar dogs in one kennel….this will be interesting.
Suspect loss of membership from both camps is behind this and the rest is rhetoric. There are other associations too that may be taking members away, like the AIOFP.
Number 1 question to answer is..”who will the new entity represent?”
Consumers, Advisers or Institutions .
You cannot represent all 3, you can only represent 1 without a conflict of interest.
Call it early and call it loud.
Who pays your wages??
Unfortunately I think you’ll find it’s the institutions that pay them the big dollars mate
That’s ok, just make a call with the new entity so people know. Don’t sit on the fence trying to look after everyone.
Very good Points:
FPA please clarify exactly who / what you represent now ?
AFA please clarify exactly who / what you represent now ?
Joint FPA / AFA please clarify exactly who / what you intend to represent ?
why..they’ve made it well known they don’t represent planners
Rather than start a competition on who’s better why not just reflect on the fact a positive outcome from this would be less duplication, an opportunity to present a united front and by blending some of their traditions will ensure all elements of the advice value chain are appropriately focused upon.
It could be worse. Whose voice will be heard?
What a joke
why ?
as long as Phil Anderson is running the show – we’ll stay – the FPA lost me – 20 years about a $1000 a year and a total waste of time
United we stand, etc.
Surely they are both hemorrhaging members?
Good call. I ceased my membership with the AFA last year after 14 years. Got zip for my buck. Good observation. Funny though isn’t it….cause the problem, then provide the solution. Same game all our governments are playing with our lives these days. GRUBS.
good idea. hope it goes somewhere. having been a member of both recently, i feel like the FPA pushes the professional agenda more (and better and with more enthusiasm) and the AFA still has an old lifey feel. I hope the new organisation focusses mostly on representing members not the consumers or the instos.
Would be good to have just one recognised body. Hopefully FPA gets more control as they are more about representing financial planners with the AFA more representative of the insurers best interests
You are totally wrong!! FPA is more representitive of big interests over the individual. The AFA is more robust and even looks slightly militant in their approach compared to the FPA only because the FPA is SO BL@@DY WEAK!!!
FPA represent consumers and big financial institutions. They do NOT care for Advisers and have thrown Advisers under the bus countless times in the last 20 years.
And yes the AFA represent the insurers.
The AIOFP is Adviser focused and is the only association that stands up for Real Advisers.
The FPA has made it pretty clear that they do not represent the boots-on-the-ground advisers. They pretty much represent the big end of town while trying to flog advisers a worthless CPD accreditation.
The AFA is proudly funded by the big end of town (see their website) so there is no expectation that they would represent advisers.
The AIOFP is the only organization vocally and actively representing advisers
Seems many don’t understand these point – alarming.
On what evidence do you rely in support of your claims? To me, it’s absurd because the FPA does not receive money from big institutions (bar the conference sponsorship which any business can sponsor) and their board is largely made of up practising financial planners like you and me.
FPA receives money from big institutions via bulk membership renewals of advisers under their licence. Those advisers don’t choose to be members, or pay for their membership. The institution tells them to join, and pays for them. Which effectively gives that institution a lot of leverage over the FPA.
That couldn’t be further from the truth. I’ve been to both conferences recently, they are basically one and the same. Not great.