Asked for their “preferred way to lobby for legislative change”, almost three-quarters (72.2 per cent) of the 2,416 respondents to a recent ifa straw poll indicated they want their “professional association” to fulfil this role.
The finding follows the appearance of both FPA chief executive Dante De Gori and AFA chief executive Philip Kewin at the royal commission’s second round of hearings last week.
Counsel assisting the royal commission Rowena Orr asked both CEOs whether there is an “inherent conflict” in their operating models – pointing to tension between the roles of representing and regulating financial advisers.
Similarly, FPA chair Neil Kendall recently told ifa that his organisation will lobby for member outcomes where change is “up for grabs”, but not where legislation is already passed, seemingly at odds with the findings of the poll.
The second most preferable method was “individual efforts lobbying MPs and policymakers” which received 12.3 per cent of the vote.
After participating in the poll, a Canberra-based adviser with knowledge of the party political process told ifa these efforts are best attempted when combined with hiring a professional registered lobbyist.
Slightly fewer respondents (11 per cent) indicated they would prefer to lobby for legislative change via their dealer group, while just 0.5 per cent responded with a preference for a financial product manufacturer to lobby on their behalf.
The remainder (4.1 per cent) said they “do not believe in lobbying for legislative change”.
The findings come as the industry faces the possibility of a new wave of regulation in the wake of evidence provided to the royal commission.
Yes indeed to all of the above. Me? As a riskie I’m still trying to come to terms with the fact that the AFA sat still and quiet while the life companies were complicit with the regulator in burdening advisers with lower commissions and a 2 year responsibility period. But, like the towers collapsing on 911, the mainstream media (not IFA) will never cover what really happened. We shall never hear that it was the stated desire of the life companies to increase their profits by clandestinely supporting both these measures (lower coms and 2yr clawback). It is abjectly disgusting that the life companies fein support for advisers even to this day in their pathetic ways and fawning corporate dribble-speak while all the time they were one of the main forces behind these two adviser and industry destroying measures. Why are advisers not making them accountable. I have tried but am only met with threats and intonations of being outcast. I cannot afford to alienate them ‘at this point in time’ for a few reasons but I am certainly not supplying them any new business. Luckily I do not need to do so financially but I am still looking after my clients with a passion – the last of my passion for this dying industry that I am able to muster thanks to the anti-client and adviser life company attitude. The attitude of which I speak is not their public face, all bright positive and breezy – it is what they actually do and what they actually believe behind the scenes.
.
Why has nobody grilled a life coy exec in public over this sham upon advisers? Why has someone not pushed and pushed the creatures until some sort of satisfactory honest-ish answer was forthcoming. Honest? Life company? Yeah, sorry about those both appearing in the one sentence . . . The life coys acted helpless and blamed the regulators while all the while they truly wanted this in their ultimate goals to replace advisers with the much more profitable Roboadvice.
.
Roboadvice-centric life companies of the near future will be anything but profitable for their masters and will be the catalyst for the failure of many life groups in Aus and the radical restructure of most as their profits evaporate within a few quarters (perhaps a year or so) when business disappears and claims escalate out of their control. Reinsurers will step in and in a move akin to bankruptcy the reinsurers will take over their businesses here in Australia. They will have few other options when business stalls and claims boom due to underwriting at point of claim. Disaster all ’round and all due to the life company execs greed and ego-fueled hubris. Clients, as usual, will be the ones to pay for this mis-management and fraud as usual. [i]Too sad . . .[/i]
.
Dear colleague, before you bemoan the fact I go on a bit in my posts, think about what I am saying . . . we know this to be true and someone HAS to say it. I simply try to do that as much as possible. If you disagree with what I am saying that is your right to your personal opinion. My personal opinion would then be that you are part of the problem. But, disagree if you must, you are of course allowed to!
We know these things to be true and it is exactly the reason why I left risk as a specialisation several years ago (as much as I believed in it). I agree with all your reasons above and more.
The turning point for me was the ASIC report – what can I say about it? The fact that prior to the report’s release:
– there were industry rumours that ASIC was investigating problematic risk advisers (but who was to know this was going to turn into a report supposedly reflective of ALL risk advisers);
– the ASIC report did not compare client satisfaction and claim rates under Risk Advisers against other major distribution channels (Group, Direct). Rather it set a legalistic standard not reflective of real world experience for end clients;
– that major players were known to be seeking to make risk fee for service (or at least level premiums with 3 year clawbacks).
Add the ASIC report to – technological disruption, ageing demographics, a sclerotic distribution structure, and losses in income protection and Group insurance, and the scene was set.
Unfortunately as you mention there is a reasonable likelihood these problems will continue to manifest, and this will lead to a loss of confidence in Life Insurance in general.
Wake up Life Insurers. Without Risk Advisers, your Social Purpose will come into question.
CPA Australia came out and said the requirement for advisers to have a specific Degree in Financial Planning was just plain wrong. FASEA listened and acted. It was common sense. The FPA however turned around and used there standard approach saying it’s too early do anything and then once the law is passed they say it’s passed nothing we can do now. If we look at the relationship between the banks, the CBA advice scandals and FASEA we can clearly see that the FPA is not acting for advisers or the public they are only acting on behalf of themselves.
Agreed that we desperately need a lobbyist to represent adviser interests but we are too busy arguing that one type of adviser is better than another. Hence no united front and no representation. How about we set up a group for advisers that are not into shameless self promotion, secure most of their new business from referrals rather than advertising and respect that there are many client segments to be serviced in various ways and fee structures. What is more important is that the clients are satisfied and their agreed objectives are being achieved.
Great response! The mortgage broking industry (which I am also a member of) has done an outstanding job brining the industry together and lobbying and getting results. We NEED to band together and lobby. I’m an AR of an independently owned dealer group. I charge my clients competitive fees and I take insurance commissions. So what! It works for me and my clients and I’m proving excellent advice. I am fed up of some independent guys pontificating there model is the “only” model. It’s not. Ladies and gents: we need to all band together now under a unified front our we are ALL screwed…
Its not just the RC questioning the point of the AFA and FPA its also the members. Both have inherent conflicts accepting payments from product providers. They neither represent their independent members or customers, just themselves.
I think Neil Kendall’s comments are about FASEA it is passed into L-A-W there is no going back on this.
Neil Kendall’s comments relate to the broad requirement for advisers to have a degree. Not only is it law, it is a policy the FPA supports. What is not locked in yet is how FASEA determines which degrees and degree equivalent study will be acceptable.
So far FASEA has determined that a law degree is relevant to financial planning, but degrees like engineering or science or business administration are not. And according to FASEA the CFP course which is focused solely on financial planning, requires an undergraduate degree as a prerequisite, is delivered in association with a university, and includes an ethics module, is worthless. FASEA has failed in their role so far. Sanders had to go. The FPA needs to keep lobbying until FASEA comes up with a common sense solution that is aligned with the intention of the legislation.
The CFP course is not from a University. It was prior to 2018 only granted 1 exemption for the 5 units by the people that wrote it. Deakin recently changed this, this year. How can FASEA recognise a privately run course. They can’t nor they should. Just because the FPA told you it’s like a AQF 9 course it’s not an AQF 9 course. I think my Toyota Corolla is a Ferrari but it’s not… You’ve been conned by the FPA and it’s not FASEA’s fault that you’ve been conned. It’s the FPA… because they called for prior learning to be 14 points out of 100 and placed little recognition for prior learning calling for their FPEC list to be the main yard stick.
I agree in principle McGlashen. However in practice, Uni courses in FP courses have only appeared in last 3-4 years, prior to that they were very thin on the ground. Before these courses became more common CFP was considered a defacto gold standard by many. Case in point, as recently as 12-18 mths ago (prior to FASEA) major employers were asking for CFP status as a proof of the quality of the adviser, a non-negotiable condition of employment as a Senior Adviser.
In other words, CFP was considered a defacto gold standard by many in the industry, and now with the recent announcements, advisers who went the extra mile to do the CFP course will be penalised.
Just feel that our industry has lost it’s way.. hijacked by the media and political correctness. We need support and a strong voice to highlight the positives that we bring to client relationships.
The fact that there has been so much change, more regulations, changes to LIF, FoFA, increased compliance costs, decreased life insurance commission, education standard and constant threat of civil/criminal liability (the list goes on).
Do the regulators actually understand how difficult they have made this industry. Someone needs to make a stand – otherwise the only winners will be the legal firms, comparison websites and call centres offering general advice. That can’t be a positive for Australians?
our professional membership bodies are akin to a trade union, ( did I say that ). On the face of things we are not represented well. AFA and FPA – time to do as we request – look after our BEST INTERESTS. Off ya a*%$ and get to it. I can see a move for a real representative body to appear.
Agree. the time is perfect for a new association that wants to be professional association.
ABSOLUTELY! The AFA & FPA have let their members out to dry and should be ashamed of themselves. The industry is copping an absolute battering in the media, and these guys haven’t made one interview, one press release defending the majority of good professional advisers out there. What is our mandatory membership going towards? All we get is invites to irrelevant lunches and seminars, but zero lobbying or voice for our profession in what is the biggest threat to us AND OUR CLIENTS.
surprise surprise members want their associations to actually represent them, for to long now these associations have been taking fee’s and doing nothing for its members.