In an email to members, AIOFP executive director Peter Johnston said – in light of the Senate Economics Committee tabling its report on the Life Insurance Framework – advisers have been made to appear as though their views were represented by the AFA and FPA, but stated they were actually ignored.
“Sections [of the report] clearly demonstrate that the minister and the Senate committee relied upon the views of the FSC, FPA, AFA as representing the entire industry. As we all know the FPA and AFA totally ignored the views of their adviser members and sided with the institutional and FSC reform agenda,” Mr Johnston said.
“The FSI (headed by a banker), the Trowbridge Report (backed and funded by the FSC and AFA), ASIC’s flawed inquiry and the LIF industry report to the Minister (backed by the AFA, FPA and FSC) should be sufficient evidence that we need to get all the independents behind the AIOFP to ensure this never happens again.
“Independent advisers who are merely making up the numbers in an institutionally aligned association are not only funding opposition against them, but giving that entity credibility with politicians and consumer groups that they represent the entire industry,” he said.
However, AFA national president Deborah Kent has previously stressed – prior to the final form of the LIF being released – that the association did the best it could during the process to stave off a worse outcome for advisers.
AFA chief executive Brad Fox has also previously expressed his disappointment that the association could not get a better deal for advisers.
The FPA also voiced similar sentiment to the AFA, having previously stated that the association fought to ensure advisers were not left short in the final outcome of the reforms.
Michael, there was the well publicised stoush between Johnston and a fund manager and the matter of $100K wager on who had the right info on Astarra. Johnston was backing them (Astarra) all the way but surprisingly never took the bet…
Michael,
You obviously have a vested interest whch is why you were trying to deflect the facts. I was not incorrect. Peter Johnston praised Jack Flader in the period between when the whereabouts of the funds were questioned and the acknowledgement that they were gone and Jack Flader had disappeared. He should have said nothing in praise in this period till all was known. I have nothing against the AIOFP / AFA or FPA, I’m not a member of any of there associations. What I was saying was that I doubt the AIOFP will lead the industry any better than the FPA or AFA.
Shelby,
I am sure you think you are quoting facts constructively but you are not. Astarra was a con. Well constructed and camouflaged. Peter Johnston, and many others, were given so called factual reports signed off by accredited experts. It was much later discovered that there were two lots of funds, not one. The “good” one had money in it. The one diverted off shore did not. Peter Johnston, on behalf of certain AIOFP members, sort to defend the position of its members involved and help retrieve the members’ clients funds. There was never any praise or defence of Flader. Wealthsure had its own issues with ASIC. Again nothing to do with the AIOFP.
I and many others have been members of the AIOFP for years. We left the FPA because it was obviously focussed on interests other than the independent sector. Were the FPA and/or AFA truly acting in the best interests of consumers of financial planning services they would have responded to the FSC and Trowbridge by taking the fight to the institutions and encouraging the government to mandate that product manufacturing and distribution were incompatible. Something the UK did and NAB’s local operation got rid of the planning arm very quickly. They knew where the money was for them.
We need an independent advice body, only the AIOFP has the critical mass and advice specific focus to fulfil that role currently.
Have an open mind. Meet with AIOFP members before judging us and relying on misinformation peddled by vested interests.
Before every poster starts getting over-excited about the AIOFP leading the financial planning profession to the promised land, remember they have a bit of a chequered history. Remember Peter Johnston the executive director praising Jack Flader at the height of the Trio/Asterra debacle? Member firms such as Wealthsure (names since changed) requiring a major clean out and EU? I’m not saying all AFA or FPA firms haven’t had issues, and the AIOFP are entitled to their say, but posters please, I don’t think the AIOFP will lead the industry any better than the FPA/AFA.
I agree with both of the above.
If this body can actively represent advisers and promote the profession, enhance standards and help take advisers forward with all the challenges they face, then all the better.
That said it is disappointing that it took the whole insurance mess for this to be the straw that broke so many advisers backs. The lack of self government , inability to build a professional consensus and barely taking a reactive approach for years, should have been enough for a mass exodus of advisers from these failed bodies, the rest of it is just the nail in the coffin.
Thanks AIOFP for putting forward the only true Adviser based opinions.
We will continue our strong support of the AIOFP and we can’t understand why advisers that are upset with the FPA and AFA continue to support them.
Stop paying your mbership fees and these so called adviser associations will wither on their own crap vine.
I honestly felt and still feel like the AFA did nothing but appease the FSC along with the FIA. All we heard was the AFA were ambushed and had to go along with the process of Trowbridge and
LIF
Deborah and Brad, do not bleet to us about you did the best you could! Or you Brad “expressed your disappointment you couldn’t get a better “deal” for advisers.
THIS WAS NOT ABOUT A “DEAL”. This was about allowing advisers to look after their clients in an extremely professional way we always do. Being there when we are needed, going the extra mile when needed. With both of you demonstrating your non comittment to your members, not getting in there and fighting, being led by the nose by the FSC and FPA you let your members down 100%. If this was the AFA of only a couple of short years ago, when we had the likes of Burnie Too hey, Joe Nowak, Michael Murphy and Hugh Crawford to name a few, there were many more, they were not there for themselves, fluffing their feathers in front of the Politicians. They were for their Association and it’s members 1st, 2nd and third.
This is not just about commission.
We are bloody good at what we do and deliver fantastic outcomes for clients.
That is exactly what we expect of you two people. I certainly would not want either of you commanding a platoon I was a soldier of.
I cancelled my afa membership 9 months ago due to them selling us out and destroying our industry by sucking up to the fsc and then getting paid off by the banks by making all advisers members of a professional association. I will not be told to pay to associations that are run by overweight fatcats that don’t know sugar and all they care about is when the next blacktie function is on sponsored by the banks, all advisers spend your association fees on something worthwhile I am joining AIOFP