Appearing on the latest podcast of ifa sister title Risk Adviser, released today, Mr De Gori was asked whether financial ties to licensees, life insurers and other financial product manufacturers make it difficult to negotiate policy in members’ and the public interest.
“[The FPA’s] revenue isn’t beholden to, or dependent on, any product manufacturer or licensee,” Mr De Gori said. “The majority of our revenue actually does come from membership fees and education.”
Pressed on the breakdown between these two revenue streams, the professional association chief said that “effectively less than five per cent of our revenue would generate from product manufacturing, of course notwithstanding our congress, which is sponsored by our partners and those who sponsor the congress”.
The FPA’s congress, which was held in Perth last month, is sponsored by a number of commercial partners, including subsidiaries of the four major banks and a range of life insurance providers, according to the event website.
The revelation follows comments by FPA head of policy and government relations Ben Marshan at the congress in Perth that the association will move to put greater pressure on “licensees, employers and product manufacturers”.
Mr De Gori made clear that the FPA’s five per cent revenue derived from product manufacturers in no way colours or influences its approach to policy issues.
“It’s very important and clear that the objective here, number one, we advocate in the public interest in terms of the positions that we take that we feel are right for consumer outcomes,” he said.
“Number two, our membership is made up of individual practitioners, and they’re the lifeblood of the FPA and the financial planning profession, and we support them before all else in that respect as well.
“So I think it’s really important that that is considered and the positions that we take and the discussions that we have, and the debates that we’re involved in, revolve around those key objectives.”
The FPA reported $8.7 million in total income from members for the year ending 30 June 2015.
To listen to the latest Risk Adviser podcast featuring Dante De Gori, click here.
Maybe if Dante included how many individual memberships and course fees are paid by advisers who are non aligned to product manufacturers we could have some better understanding of the potential for conflict?
Notional indications to date have been that 80-85% of FPA members are operating under a licensee aligned to a product manufacturer. If so, then 85-90 of FPA revenue is from product manufacturers either directly or indirectly.
If that is not so,then publish data to the contrary FPA.
The FOA’s primary role is and should be to those who fund it.
Consumers have their own advocates and FPA should allow those parties to act for consumers. Those other advocates are quite capable of doing their own job and don’t need FPA interference.
i cant believe what I’m reading, a beat up story c’mon IFA use journalists please ! We need to stop taking aim at associations whose sole purpose is the consumer and raising the bar on professionalism, for those who sit on the sidelines and criticise, step forward, offer your time to help build this great profession !!!
FPA is a joke its a puppet of the big end of town. It pushes the banks and Insurers agenda and has worked against the best interest of clients and their advisers. Cant believe advisers have not woken up to them.
Dear diary,
Need to look into enrolling in the FPA’s new course – How to Ignore Conflicts of Interest Like an Old School Financial Planner.
Expect they might have some good examples.
Love,
Nudge
xoxo
Rubbish. So it around 5% PLUS sponsorship PLUS the FSC members who agree to sign up all of their vertically aligned advisers whilst they need to influence both of the FPA and AFA over things like the LIF. Who is the FPA kidding??
Good to see that the FPA believe amounts less then 5% of revenue are insufficient to influence actions. Maybe they should consider this for their members when drafting conflicted remuneration guidelines.
blabla – indocritinated much? good to see the press calling out fpa hypocrysy for once
What a load of rubbish. You should ask the FPA how much they received from the fund manager behind the fraud at Astarra Strategic Fund/ Trio Capital. The fund manager responsible for the fraud was defended publicly by the FPA but the individual members were not.
what a dud story. A blatantly sensational headline, but the article is actually very ho-hum. I’m not surprised though – it’s entirely typical of IFA in recent years.