Speaking to ifa on the sidelines of the FPA’s 2017 Professionals Congress in Hobart, FPA head of policy and government relations Ben Marshan said the program has no influence over the industry association’s ability to lobby for matters of public interest.
He explained that the Professional Partner Program was a way for AFSLs to help their members meet the FPA codes of ethics and professional practice.
“We have individual members, but individual members are licensed by AFSLs, and so a number of the AFSLs have entered into the FPA Professional Partner Program,” Mr Marshan said
“What they’re doing is pledging to support their members in complying with FPA standards, assisting us in helping our members in the work they do and the work we do. It’s a partnership program between an AFSL and the FPA to support the individual members.”
Responding to article comments from ifa readers, Mr Marshan said the partnership “has no impact” on the association’s ability to lobby for the public interest.
“Every decision we make, everything we’re looking for is firstly whether or not it’s in the consumer’s best interest, whether or not it helps financial planning as a profession and whether or not it makes the regulatory environment more efficient,” Mr Marshan said.
“The reality is the way that the Professional Partner Program works is that those partners are pledging to help individuals, our members, comply with our code of professional practice, so they’re basically working with us to make their members better professional financial planners.”
Mr Marshan said the FPA’s policy submissions evidenced this, and that while some members and practices question the association, most are “comfortable” with the partnership program.
“I challenge any of our members to find, particularly compared to other associations and their submissions, that we’re conflicted in any way, that we’re biasing banks in any way, that we’re biasing large licensees in any way,” he said.
“In fact, I have strong conversations with a lot of those organisations about the submissions we make.”
What is all this bleating about?! If you don’t believe that the FPA is representing your interests, then don’t join and feel free to shout them down at every opportunity. But do it based on their positions, not the fact that you feel that they have a conflict of interest between their members and their corporate partners… There are conflicts everywhere, its the impact they have not their simplest existence that is the issue.
The impact of FPA conflicts is a reduction in their credibility with regulators. They have been ineffectual in lobbying on behalf of the profession because regulators do not regard them as a professional association.
Well said anon in response to anon. I would just add that it is not bleating; it’s an attempt to reduce red tap, to self regulate with the hope of preventing over regulation…we cannot do this from the outside and throw rocks like you imply, we have to do it internally as voting members.. It’s about an organisation that claims to be professional yet hides payments as members fees. It’s all about Treasury’s perception of the FPA when they lodge submissions. Yes there are conflicts of interest everywhere but do we want them to be within an organisation that 1) claims to be “professional” and 2) wants to act on consumers and advisers behalf when dealing with Governments.
The FPA is ineffectual because it is a closed shop think tank with virtually no contemporary real-world experience. I don’t think they would have any more impact even if the partner program stopped tomorrow.
The only reason they still exist is that they control the CFP moniker in Australia; I predict the degree requirements of FASEA will supersede CFP in coming years and the FPA’s membership will wither and die. bonum est faciet
Fpa – taking payments from product manufacturers, whereas planners aren’t allowed to. Not to mention the soft dollar benefits and lunches. Quick look through the annual statements shows how their salaries have grown over recent years. Sit around congratulating themselves on how much revenue they take in.
Disgraceful behaviour, and the planning industry will never get better while this kind of attitude claims to represent us.
Exactly, they are out of step with members.
Easy fix people. Join the AIOFP. ?
Just as bad. nab is the main sponsor of their junkets.
“Sponsor” being the key word here Skeptik. . An openly disclosed sponsorship payment is quite different to an undisclosed hidden payment from NAB with the promise of a 10% discount for members and the opportunity to have the ears of the FPA is a very very different thing. At least you know who paid for the junket and you can come to your own informed opinions. When an organisation get payments and dosen’t want to disclose them members need to ask questions WHY.
LOL!
Just delete the word partner and insert mlc, amp, nab. Then it will make sense and readers can make their own judgement.
I just find this arrangement very hypocritical of the FPA. An organisation that now seems to have been incorrectly over using the word “professional”. We are not talking about the FPA receiving a payment from a one or two person small AFSL here. We’re talking about firms like AMP, Charter, Bridges, IOOF and of course the large banks. It’s the arrogance to claim they are working with small AFSL’s when it’s hidden payments from the big end of town. Franky, I am ashamed to be a member. I fear that when the TPB board expands the number of associations on their list early 2018, we’ll see an exodus of members and the only FPA members left will be advisers aligned with the big end of town, that being AMP. At least the AFA disclose these payments on their website. I will explore other membership options, either the AFA, AIOFP or the SPAA.
My employer is looking to give me authorised rep status in the new year and I was wondering do I [u]HAVE[/u] to be a member of a professional body? I don’t need the TPB exemption as I have done the study. All I see in the comments is everyone complaining about the FPA and AFA so don’t think I want to join either unless I absolutely have to.
An excellent question. The answer is No, you don’t have to be a member of any.
However, people join an association for many reasons. Networking, PD events, perhaps you work for the CBA and so as a part of a deal to avoid an enforceable undertaking with ASIC your employer forces you to join the FPA and the CBA buys your silence in return for more fee paying members. Some advisers believe in their industry bodies code of ethics. Some people join because they believe that in order to reduce red tape, to increase consumer confidence we need to self regulate. Part of that self regulation is joining an industry association and committing to their code of conduct. I would encourage you to join, but I would join for the right reasons. In saying that, like you pointed out, you meet the TPB requirements today… but legislation changes and the Government requires evidence of ongoing professional development as evidence of having those skills, so no doubt you’ll be forced anyway to join regardless. Check out the AFA, the FPA the AIOFP or SPAA or FINSIA. You’ll note I haven’t used the words professional association as unfortunately the FPA is not one yet for the reasons in this article.
You raise an interesting point. Why join. Why pay all this money if the very professional body we belong to can’t act professional in it’s own right. Otherwise we may as well just be flushing our $1,000 a year down the toilet. That’s the reason why FPA members need to be angry and we need to get rid of this program. Hopefully that helps. p.s given the fees perhaps join when you’re earning the $$.
If you want to be a CFP you have to be an FPA member, as FPA has the exclusive Australian rights for it.
The FPA and the AFA are both controlled by those that give them the kickbacks and as such are not professional associations at all. Just a tool for the the FSC members to increase profits at the expense of customers.
You’d think if they got rid of these payments we could avoid these assertions and perceptions. A professional association should avoid any conflict of interest whether real, actual, perceived or otherwise. To try and do no less is not acting in a professional manner. To not avoid these conflicts of interest actually brings all members into disrepute. I myself do not advertise I am professional but I notice the FPA advertises that they are professional. To even name a program professional partner program is being hypocritical in it’s own right, is it not? There are many industry associations, SPAA, AFA, FINSIA, the list is countless so to pay $900 plus in membership fees for just another “industry”” association is quite frankly stupid.
You need to change the title IFA. “FPA defends bank kickbacks” would be more appropriate. I would easily say 9 out of 10 FPA members would not know that this relationship even actually exists.
ASIC has banned the use of the phase “non-institutionally owned”” and the FPA concurred. Given the dominance of the Banks how could that be in the best interests of consumers.
I couldn’t agree more with the comments! The FPA can pretend all it likes but perception is reality in our industry. The bulk of advisers are associated with licensees who exist as product distribution channels. Even my own AFSL who claim no requirement to use the parent company product seems to ensure that the parent company product BDM’s and tech staff attend every event and are consulted on a broad range of issues. To then have my AFSL as a FPA Professional Partner (which they are) means that at the end of the day the FPA is not a safe space for advice professionals.
[i]“In fact, I have strong conversations with a lot of those organisations about the submissions we make.” [/i]that sums up why so many members have a problem with these payments. The fact you are talking to AMP and the CBA to design policy submissions after getting a financial benefit. No wonder we have opt in, and the FPA’s stance and support on the use of the term independent. …
It’s an old program left over from the 80’s and it’s time to move. I believe I’m independent but the fact that I get a few hundred dollars in insurance commissions means I cannot call myself non institutionally owned,(not that this worries me), because ASIC perceive this be misleading and therefore I am not independent. What I personally believe is irrelevant. It’s the very same premise FPA.
The program states: [i]”you work in partnership with the FPA to shape the future direction of the profession through a close working relationship with the FPA executive team” [/i] The FPA feel that payments from the banks, AMP, IOOF and other product manufacturers does not influence their policy interaction with Treasury. However, this is all about “perceived” conflicts of interest. Just because the FPA feel there is no conflict, how do these payments influence Treasury and ASIC’s perception of the FPA submissions. How for example might a Union dominated Labor Government perceive the FPA stance on Opt in, if the FPA are funded by say AMP? How would a Bank hating public perceive the FPA?
Why don’t the FPA openly disclose these payments in their annual report? I have no concerns with AMP/CBA etc. sponsoring an FPA run event. The Victorian Medical Association does not get payments from Pfizer. They feel rightly or wrongly it’s a conflict of interest. Nor do they give membership discounts based on what drug manufacturer their members work for. All members pay the same.
Some FPA members are tired of over regulation, over red tape and a tired of turning ordinary Australians that genuinely need advice away. We just believe getting rid of these programs are a very small step towards making us a profession, with the hopes of preventing future over regulation and we want the FPA to lead the way, to be the leaders we want them to be.
Talk is cheap. Saying you have no conflict doesn’t mean you have no conflict. FPA, your behaviour is way more telling that your tongue.
“He explained that the Professional Partner Program was a way for AFSLs to help their members meet the FPA codes of ethics and professional practice.”
How on earth do AFSLs need help beyond their own resources to help their members meet the FPA codes of ethics and professional practice.
I, in my naivety, thought that was AFSLs initial and ongoing commitment.
If they need the additional support of the Professional Partner Program they are [i]ipso facto[/i] admitting that their own organisation has failed in the past and needs a band-aid.
100% agree with Anonymous. Both the FPA and AFA have become the “Fat Cats” of our Financial Services Association for Members.
2003 Diploma of Financial Services?
FPA, your behaviour, greed and morals are absolutely DISGRACEFUL. How you have engineered this industry to feed yourselves is a crime.
I would like to take that challenge .
Here are a few facts from a financial planner running his own business. All that has happened over the last 10/15 years is more red tape , greater regulations on the adviser , a cut in commissions for risk products which has resulted in a LOT more consumers being priced out of obtaining advice from a living human being , practices profitability being compromised , less incentive to grow your practice all in what we always here is an attempt to weed out the bad apples whilst we see major credibility issues with large banks ie professional partners. This is all happening whilst our industry organisations FPA and AFA have grown in staff numbers
The growth in staff numbers is interesting. If you haven’t been watching what has been going on over at the CPA’s, then have a look as it is a case study in apathy by members to allow a fiefdom to be created for the benefit of the directors and administrators. I am not saying it is a problem in the FPA or the AFA but it is certainly worth a look and monitoring.