Offering a right of reply to comments made by AIOFP executive director Peter Johnston yesterday, Mr Rantall told ifa that while he “welcomes any intelligent debate on the white paper”, the FPA has received “overwhelming support” so far for the 10-point plan from the advice community.
Debate over the white paper proposal has revealed a stark dichotomy between “some interest groups which have been established to support the commercial interest of their members” and the FPA as a “professional association”.
In addition, Mr Rantall clarified the white paper proposal to give ASIC additional enforcement powers to regulate breaches of the best interest duty.
“The profession and regulators need to be given powers and authority to act to ensure consumers are not put in harm’s way,” Mr Rantall said.
“Both have received criticism for not acting quickly enough. Give them the power to take swift and decisive action when there is evidence of serious and systemic breaches of the best interest duty to clients. We must be able to take those that are destroying people’s lives out of the system quickly.”
The 10-point plan is aimed at “building this profession for an eternity”, Mr Rantall said, and that it is “therefore critical that we elevate above the noise of short-term commercial gain to build something that will stand the test of time”.
The 10 point plan is a good starting point.
Well done FPA. Time to raise the bar.
Hi Steve, I choose to be a member of linkedin but rarely make any comments on there so don’t really know where you are coming form with your last comment.
As I use my FULL NAME here you can easily check for yourself that is assuming you have CHOSEN TO BE A MEMBER
Nice linkedin comment Danny, that will look good on your profile.
Seems to me that if the FPA is a glove worn by the hand of the banks, the banks have been slapping themselves in the face re: FOFA.
The FPA is a glove warn by the hand of the banks.
The only reason the FPA exists is because the Banks make all their advisors join.
Spot on Patriot & Steve!
This is exactly like the USA’s weapons of mass destruction rubbish.
Better pull your heads in FPA. Advisers are sick & tired of you forgetting who you represent!
Membership cancelled years ago by the way!
Hey Steve, If you don’t want to be a member of the FPA then Don’t.No one forces you to No one is forcing you to be a member Fact is though,over 50% of advisers do belong to the FPA and the work done by the current board and management in representing the interests of consumers and its members deserves to be congratulated. I was once very critical of the FPA but I decided that the best way to have a say in what was going on was to become involved in my local chapter.
It is very easy to cast stones in a faceless blog. How about you turn up to your local chapter meeting and contribute or do as you have threatened and cancel your membership!!
I still reckon that the FPA are only interested in themselves. Lifting qualifications doesnt change behaviour. Not acting strongly enough on teh TASA issue is poor and symptomatic of an association disinterested in the planners at the coal face. if it werent for the tie-in with CFP I would not be a member. The 10 point plan is OK but wont do what it set out to do – change behaviour of the minority of advisers who do the wrong thing. Think again, FPA.
It’s like this Jonathon…if it gets published then it must have overwhelming support. It’s a bit like if you have an article published somewhere you automatically become a “leading industry expert”
How do they measure “overwhelming support” from the advice community??
Michael, this is just a self preservation tactic by the FPA. The industry body that raises these FALSE FLAGS and scare tactics to a dopey ill informed government who wrongly assume they are doing the best thing for our industry. The FPA needs to be taken out and the best way to do this is for people to start cancelling their membership. Who really needs this useless body anyway? Seriously WHO??? Cue the self promoting CFP’s or advisers wanting a great cliche LINKEDIN friendly quote.
Are we able to deal with the real problem here? The FPA seems to be adopting a similar approach to the NRA in the USA. Let’s give everyone access to automatic weapons and then legislate to deal with the breaches. We have a small number of people causing the problems. They do so because they are allowed to by people who remove themselves from being in the firing line. If the chain of responsibility applied at a personal level I wonder how many of these institutions’ directors would allow themselves to be exposed to the practices undertaken by their planning arms?
Separately, the institutional product manufacturers are more interested in volume than anything else and provide financial incentives to encourage bad behaviour. Cap service fees on investment products to 5% and insurance commissions at 30% (level) and a lot of problems would simply disappear. “Churning” would be gone overnight.