During the AIA Adviser conference this week, the Financial Planning Association of Australia (FPA) chair Marisa Broome fielded a question about the prospect of a merger between FPA and the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA), saying it was “not off the table”.
However speaking to ifa, AFA CEO Phil Anderson said the question asked at the conference is “not an uncommon occurrence”.
“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,” Mr Anderson said.
“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. We also work with the other associations in the advice space.”
Similarly, the FPA board said in a statement given to ifa that it has close to ties all associations within the financial services sector.
“As a board, we are continually focused on doing what is right for members and the profession and consumers more broadly,” the statement read.
“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.”
The FPA dosen’t solely represent Advisers…they represent participants in the Advice industry. That’s AwareSuper and the Barefoot investor too. They represent those people equally and therefore need to take into account the needs to the person on Tik ToK also…. The FPA and the AFA have different values and perhaps FPA members have unrealistic ideas and expectations. I suspect too many think because they pay $1,000 a year for a three little letters called CFP that that membership money gets them advocacy and representation. It dosen’t. It gets you three letters a webinar, a conference and a networking opportunity.
FPA does not adequately represent advisers. End of story.
a juggling act because they also have to represent the person on Tik Tok as well. They also have to represent AwareSuper with 200 plus advisers. Then they also have to pretend to represent the Adviser being told to sell more product at AwareSuper or else…. Does that clarify it for you?
WHY NOT ?! We need one association – as Bill Shorten said years ago, any government cannot deal with too many self interested industry groups. Clearly the FPA and AFA are not taking things serious enough but imagine what could be gained following a merger.
The FPA represents AwareSuper and you and the Barefoot Investor. Three different parties all with very different needs. The FPA represents the Advice Industry and Advisers are thinking they represent them. Does that explain why there won’t be any merger?
So the FPA’s response is “it could be a positive move but we aren’t looking at it”. WTF. Why are they not looking at something which they believe would be positive for the industry?
Rather than merging, perhaps the FPA could transform into a professional association while the AFA just focuses on being an industry association?
At the moment both associations are attempting to span both roles, and doing a poor job of it.
Here’s how to do it FPA:
– Only allow practicing planners who are qualified (not grandfathered) CFP members to vote or hold office
– Put everyone else in a general “associate” category that has no input or influence. And don’t be concerned if most of them leave
– Only accept membership fees directly from individuals, not corporates or employers
– Get rid of all programs and relationships that are focused on companies rather than individuals
The FPA has never accepted that grandfathered CFP’s are NOT really CFP’s. A sham in every sense.
Because there is no such thing as a “grandfathered” CFP.
Alternatively you could make the AFA the professional association and let the FPA wither and die. What has the FPA done in the past 7 years to justify supporting it going forward?
It was shut down becuase it would make too much sense. We can’t have that. This is financial services after all.
Self preservation/interest is obviously higher on the agenda for these organisations….how unsurprising!!