The Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) has cast doubt on the feasibility of efforts to call an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) to enshrine opposition to the Life Insurance Framework (LIF) within its constitution, stating such a move would not change anything.
In a message sent to AFA members overnight, AFA President Deborah Kent also stated that an EGM to oppose LIF and retain 100% of upfront commissions would destabilise the association and heavily impact its ability to negotiate with government and other industry bodies on the issue.
Kent noted concerns raised by a number of AFA members that they had received an unsolicited email via the Life Insurance Customer Group (LICG) carrying a message from AFA member and LICG founding member, Mark Dunsford, and was conducting an investigation into the legality of this email (see: AFA Member Calls for EGM on LIF).
Kent also said the calling of an EGM and the retention of full upfront commissions “…will not accomplish a change to LIF but the proposed change to the Constitution would harm the AFA irrevocably if implemented”.
“The request for an EGM…is not going to prevent the Life Insurance Framework that is already supported by the Government and the Opposition”
“The request for an EGM before you now is not going to prevent the Life Insurance Framework that is already supported by the Government and the Opposition,” Kent said. “The consequence is that it would undo several years of the AFA earning a seat at the table with all major political parties,” Kent added, stating the call came at a time when the AFA needed to create additional relationships of influence with new members of Parliament.
Kent also said the change of position on LIF would destabilise the reputation of the AFA at a time when it was also dealing with policy issues in the areas of professional standards, superannuation changes, robo-advice regulations and the SoA Review Project and would effectively stop any further work by the Association.
“If an EGM is successfully called, and the special resolution passed, this would mean the AFA would be neutered in relation to having any influence on policy matters with government and others,” Kent said, highlighting the fact that the board would be required under the Constitution to call a General Meeting and conduct a member vote before forming a policy position, or being able to negotiate those positions with government or other parties.
“The AFA would be excluded by these bodies because of our inability to make timely decisions. No association or professional body can be effective in those circumstances.” Kent said, calling on members to support the work of the Association by not supporting the call for an EGM or an amendment to the Constitution.
The message to members also rebuffed claims the AFA had not consulted with members on LIF by outlining that it had provided opportunities for members to contribute to submissions for the Life Insurance and Advice Working Group and to the Federal Government on LIF legislation as well as through working groups, round tables, webinars, and roadshows.
Kent also said the AFA had prevented the adoption of the Financial System Inquiry recommendation for level commissions only through lobbying with Government and by objecting to that change within the Trowbridge Report.
Dunsford made his call for an EGM via an email sent under the LICG banner to its member base and told riskinfo he had received the necessary support for an EGM to take place but did not want the meeting or his actions to be seen as ‘AFA-bashing’.
He stated he was confident the call for an EGM was likely to succeed after sufficient member support had been gained to call a meeting, which, under the AFA constitution, requires a formal, written request from 100 members. At the time of writing Dunsford stated he had received more than 150 requests for the EGM.
Dunsford stressed the EGM was not to ‘bash the Association’, nor to create a split, but to return it back to its constitutional purpose of representing members and their interests.
In his request for an EGM, Dunsford has proposed a special resolution which would amend the AFA’s constitution to include opposition to the introduction or passing of any legislation that enacted the changes proposed under the Life Insurance Framework and the canvassing of public and government support that any such changes would be contrary to the public interest.
“We are not opposed to the AFA but we are opposed to the process carried out to represent the interests of advisers…”
The resolution would also commit the AFA to pursuing these actions as a primary object of the Association for a period of three years after its insertion into the AFA’s Constitution.
“We are not opposed to the AFA but we are opposed to the process carried out to represent the interests of advisers and we feel the AFA did not push hard enough on key issues,” Dunsford said.
He said while he was proposing a special resolution his purpose was not to enact constitutional change but to ensure the original constitution of the AFA was being followed, which included advising government in the development of legislation in the public interest and opposing legislation when it ran counter to that interest.
“There has been issues where we feel the AFA has not been invested enough and we believe the average AFA member is not on board with the proposed changes compared to the board. We have asked the AFA to listen to its members and it has not done so which is why we are seeing a strong response to this call for an EGM,” Dunsford said.
The timing for the meeting may be an issue with AFA directors required under the Corporations Act to call a general meeting within 21 days of receipt of a valid request, and for the meeting to be held not later than two months after the receipt of the request.
Kent said “Illogically, this would be soon after the AGM which is to be held in Canberra at the AFA National Adviser Conference on 6th October 2016” and is set to take place in less than 60 days from the initial call for an EGM.
I have to agree with Deborah. The attack by LICG in hindsight is without wisdom. It’s a dummy spit. The AFA has been at the front of all the discussions and I believe they have negotiated the best outcome possible under difficult political pressure. We need to support them. If the government thinks we can’t agree, they may just tell us what we can have, which might be worse. Does anyone recall why this all started? Because we couldn’t self regulate and then the FSI report followed by the Trowbridge report would really have done some damage to the industry. That’s where the “big 5” would really ram home their advantage.
Nick, you are showing a naivety that astounds me.
You are throwing your towel in and showing a weakness that the FSC and the Big end of town who are pushing their own agenda, love.
You may believe the AFA has negotiated the best outcome, though please tell us all, how you came up with that conclusion and if you are going to respond, at least have the decency to do proper research and make a considered, intelligent statement, based on facts.
Great work Deborah and the AFA. It is individuals like Mark who seem to hold their own interests and the interest of a minority who lack the ability to adapt to change higher than the greater Advice community. It is about time we call out these individuals and remain steadfast in our position for great advice for more Australians. I’m not sure why he didn’t name his group the LISIG (Life Insurance Self Interest Group)
What percentage is this minority you allege?
Also, it seems you are also stating no one who receives commission is capable of great advice. Again, on what basis can you state this as fact?
John, at least Mark has the strength and conviction to put his full name to his beliefs.
I am not sure how charging a fee for service for insurance advice, implementation of insurance, ongoing reviews and the many hours claims involve is going to be cheaper or better for clients in the long term. My calculations show that the bulk of clients will pay significantly more unbder fee for service. Seems that there are self interest issues in every corner.
In regards to upfront commissions I have built my business on hybrid commissions and agree that upfronts can cause conflict. By all means do away with upfront commissions and move to a hybrid model but 80/20 is a reasonable start and then lets review the outcomes in 3 years.
The AFA are the last people I would want negotiating on my behalf based on their input to LIF. Advisers are still waiting for the FSC to explain how the average client is better of under the proposed changes.
The silence has been deafening.
I think it’s time some people took the “blinkers” off and had a look further into the future on this proposed legislation 80:20 is certainly “doable ” all be it with a little pain but let’s not forget it is proposed to go to 70:20 the year after and 60:20 after that .If that fails to appease the powers that be ? Than level commissions or fees will be the order of the day ?
Don’t kid yourselves Rome was not built in a day and neither will this legislation all happen for the banks and insurers benefit overnight but it’s well on the way Rest assured with the AFA FPA and FSC assistance it will take form and hence the demise of the risk adviser whom according to John Trowbridge are “in the way”
If we don’t do something now it will be to late ! that is why I personally take my hat off to Mark for having the drive and foresight to do what he is doing
It further appears this has frightened the AFA as this is the first time they have reacted to anything ! Cutting s bit close for comfort maybe
I would like to see this list of these worried advisers who are disgusted to receive an email that has their best interests in mind No one has forced them to sign anything ??
Keep going Mark there are thousands of advisers with you on this .
John, I do not know you, though based on your comment, it is apparent you have little knowledge or have a vested interest that does not truly represent all Australians best interests.
If you wish to comment, then may I suggest you get your facts right and refrain from attacking people who have done more to open up the discussion, based on considered research and well thought out arguments.
John, “great advice for more Australians” is almost exactly word for word the slogan that Commonwealth Financial Planning adopted and “preached” to their advisers over the last 3 years every chance they got and look at their “great” advice outcomes over years! Where did you say you worked?
Those who might support the opposition to the LIF are likely to vote against the proposed constitutional amendment because of the idiocy of enshrining such a rule in the association’s constitution. This could win them the battle but lose the war.
You must win every battle to win the War! Giving in and lying down at the first battle shows weakness and vulnerability. If the Banks find the LIF battle so easy imagine how far they will go unopposed while you wait for the battle you want to win!
All I hear are a bunch of old ivory tower preachers telling us to buckle down and take it. When the GFC swept through our industry it was Risk that kept everyone from going under and now you turn your backs because a couple of lefties call commissions sinister!
Wake up!
I Agree Deborah. I had originally signed the LICG when it originally was seeking a united voice on objection to certain changes. I agree that the original studies undertaken by ASIC were not performed to the standard expected of such a study and the results could not be said to be supported by empirical evidence or normal econometric methodology. BUT I do think we are in a sound position at the law makers table and there has to be a bit of give and take. I think that only time will tell how effective the new laws will be and if a mess is made, we can fix it…It is still far better to show some resemblance to government of the ability to act together as an industry and to not have worst case scenario legislation imposed upon us by political parties with their political advisers speaking in their ear about things they know little about….. We need to keep the control in our corner, and we do that by a little, “give and take”…nothing is set in concrete and reforms are being spread out over time. There is plenty of time to gather the empirical evidence we need to further shape future legislation, if and when needed!
@ Nick Hatherly,
Sorry but you are incorrect.
Both the AFA and the FPA acquiesced to a flawed report (Trowbridge) and an FSC agenda which was not in the client interests nor any other participant in the life insurance industry other than members of the FSC !!
If the concept of “churning” was so rife in the life insurance industry, what makes you think Life companies were powerless to name and shame those involved.
The real issue is that this is minor issue but was used as the pretext for change
If advising/selling life insurance was so conflicted because it was commission incentivised, why do you think that no life insurance company was first to move to reduce commissions without government intervention?
Why do you think coincidentally, just about every life company over the past 12 months has moved to increase their premiums between 10.0% and 85.0% ?
It’s cartel behaviour !!!
Why do you think one life company removed their superior income protection product from the market and introduced an inferior one that’s identical to every other?
You should not be so eager to defend the indefensible and swallow the pathetic rhetoric being offered by those purporting to represent ALL of US.
The members of both organisations need an industry body to stand up for it’s members,…….. not one that shows fright and flight.
It’s unAustralian to do otherwise !
Actually, …I’m not! RE-read what I wrote.
As a risk writer and AFA member, I do not believe that the AFA have acted in the best interests of the adviser during the whole LIF debate, and something needs to be done to hold them accountable.
While I fully realise that change in our industry is required, that change needs to be considered from all aspects of the industry (Consumers, Insurance companies, Licensees, Advisers, and I guess I had better put Banks in there too), and the current LIF reforms do not do this. Anybody that says that they do is either ignorant to an astounding degree or have a separate agenda.
I have read many of the press releases from the AFA, FSC and government that state the LIF reforms are going to help consumers, and yet not one person or
professional” body has been able to illustrate how the changes are going to help consumers. Propaganda anybody?
To implement extreme changes to an entire industry, and then start collecting data that supposedly warranted the changes is sheer lunacy, and yet this is something the AFA apparently supports?
Self Interest does not go hand in hand with disagreeing to the LIF Reforms. The FACTS show that the LIF Reforms in their current form are fundamentally flawed. As such, the AFA, as an adviser representative group, should be using their “big boy seat” at the table to be illustrating and highlighting the inconsistencies of the process thus far to ensure a fair results. Unless of course it is not the adviser that the AFA are representing (where do they get the majority of their funding from?)…
As a small business adviser, single mother, and busy community advocate, I have made a point of spending my valuable time to find out what the LIF is actually about. I have heard and read communications from the LICG, AFA, FPA, ASIC, FSC and Trowbridge and reviewed submissions to the various enquries and reviews.
I am extremely disappointed in Deb Kents email that was sent out. It contains errors and could even be considered defamatory. The LICG have worked hard to include the AFA in their negotiations, and their focus is not on stopping LIF but making reforms consumer focused and sensible by educating politicians and associations on what is really going on with LIF and the FSC.
Brad Fox himself has admitted LIF in its current form has no consumer benefit. It is essential that as a united advice community we continue to fight against what is actually detrimental to consumers.
If the AFA president and CEO really care about advice and consumers they would work with the incredible people working hard in their own time and at their own cost to fight to change the current proposed legislation because it is flawed and terrible for all of us.
This is not about 80/20, 60/20 or fighting against change. This is about the survival of advised insurance and continuing to provide consumers with quality cover after 2018. I advocate for change in our profession. But I will fight any change that will seriously disadvantage consumers such as LIF will.
Our Assocations need to continue this fight as well. It’s not over. It is up to us.
As a risk adviser for nigh on four decades I make the following points:
1.You cannot build a sustainable long-term risk business based on upfront commissions.
2. Hybrid & Level commissions actually pay you more over the long-term than upfronts.
3. I certainly agree that the Government made these changes based on flawed logic – refer point 2 (ie; Advisers actually get paid MORE under the changes), – however in all other respects they have put the Insurers interest ahead of all others. The ASIC report they used as a benchmark was not truly representative of the complete industry.
4. My business has used the hybrid model since 1995 – the changes have no tangible impact to me.
5.I have had to think back to close on five years since I had a policy lapse in the first two years – that lapse was actually because we were able to advise the client inside the first 12 months that as his circumstances had changed the cover was no longer required.
6. The only certainty in this industry is change – CARs, Financial Plans, SOAs TASA LIF – but we still get through and get the job satisfaction of seeing the value of our advice securing families through good products (I only wish Whole of Life was brought back – insurers, get onto it!).
7. If you are doing the wrong thing now (ie;’churn”) the Best Interests Duty will see you caught and punished, if not today, certainly very soon. The Churners are finished or very soon will be.
8. I am sick and tired of the hoo hah on this and want to move forward.
9 Rant over. I think I feel better now.
Here we go.
The standard response from a bunch of completely out of touch executives, who are out of their depth, who instead of listening to their members and taking on board valid arguments, they instead decide to barricade themselves in, call the Lawyers and hide behind words.
Deborah Kent has shown she is completely out of touch and has lost the ability to represent advisers and all Australians interests with the statement she has made and she should apologise, retract her ridiculous statement and start representing advisers properly, or do the honourable thing, resign and let someone with the necessary skill and experience, represent members and guide the AFA with fair but strong principles that will not be compromised.
Do we have to remind Deborah that the AFA is short for The Association of Financial Advisers, not the Association of Big Business Interests at the expense of all Australians.
By her stating that the EGM to oppose LIF and retain 100% of upfront commission, would destabilise the association and impact it’s ability to negotiate with Government, is the most ridiculous thing I have heard.
Her attitude of “don’t rock the boat” is a defeatist attitude and it is not up to her, Brad Fox or anyone else in the AFA to accept an indefensible LIF that does not truly represent all Australians Interests.
The AFA have a duty to take this back when it is tabled and fight the issues that will drag down the retail life industry and which will allow the FSC to push through its agendas.
A weak AFA board that has not got the courage to stand up to intimidation, bullying and politicking by big business vested interest groups, that have only their best interest as their sole purpose, shows a divided opposition and these AFA board members must go.
Kent adding ‘the consequences is that it would undo several years of the AFA earning a seat at the table, is like a child wanting to be popular and accepted.
Deborah grow up. You are in the lion’s den and at the moment the AFA is a lamb.
Mark Dunsford and the LICG, congratulations, keep going and do not be distracted by the noise of beaurocrats and fools.
Phil Mc has asked a very good question – how does LIF in its current format benefit consumers? This question has been asked in previous RiskInfo editions and no answer has ever been given!
Nick Hatherly, you are entitled to your opinions but the issues raised by Alleycat in response are valid. Furthermore the LICG have not “attacked” anything! They have simply done what the FPA and AFA have not done – represent risk advisers.The fact that the LICG has thousands of names on their petition validates the issues they have raised. The fact that Mark Dunsford had 150 advisers supporting his call for an EGM so soon after calling for such a meeting further proves that he is doing the right thing. Well done Mark.
Deborah Kent has mentioned that an EGM will not alter LIF legislation. Nonsense! It has been stated that as a result of the federal election, the entire process is to start again, which means that the AFA and the FPA are in a prized position to do the right thing and REPRESENT THEIR MEMBERS!
Brad Fox and Deborah Kent – your members are trying to tell you something.
PLEASE LISTEN!
The lady doth protest
too much, methinks.
Ms Kent has given us an individual partisan self-centred epistle
in which she claims the AFA has done a lot for risk writers and that an EGM is
not necessary . The bottom line is the AFA failed politically to recognise a
challenge from the banks for what it was – an abusive grab for market power,
dressed up in the garb of consumer interests, clinging to the flawed ASIC
Report 413, the statistical validity of which the AFA failed to challenge. The
AFA went off like lambs to a political slaughter to be confronted by an
arrogant Minister making threats, but seeking tacit agreement from the AFA
& FPA he could dress up as endorsement of his ( read banks ) ideas. The AFA
should have got up and walked out at that point. The AFA should then have taken
the time to engage a proven Liberal party connected lobbyist with Federal
experience. We needed an insider with connections in the current Federal government,
and Members would have paid a levy if asked properly.
The bottom line is that the proposed EGM is not really about
what happened yesterday – it’s about
what happens in the future and it just so happens that someone else ( the LICG
and others ) have a different version of what should happen in the future. One
way or another, those who organize the best will win, and it behoves the AFA
board to listen ( and not engage in any partisan activity as Ms Kent appears to
be doing ), given they have failed to listen and have failed miserably to poll
their risk writer members. Yes there have been a few rah-rah meetings full of
young inexperienced advisers, unwise in
the attitudes and behaviours of insurance companies, who have engaged in
meaningless feel-good sessions at AFA Seminars, but expressing mild confidence
to non-specific questions is NOT blanket endorsement. Most new advisers I speak
to, apprised of the real commission outcome in 3 years, are suddenly white
faced !
This proposed EGM is about risk advisers giving effective
voice and driving AFA policy on risk matters, it’s not about the AFA per se. We
want to stay in the tent! The current Board should sit down and recognise that
they don’t hold the support of the risk
writer business people and if the Board wants risk writers to stay as AFA
members then they better listen to what risk advisers want, and, having
listened, effectively represent those views to the politicians in power. On all
counts they’ve failed miserably to date !
I intend to give Ms
Kent the benefit of a personal response addressing her letter point by point
but I still want to ask this question and I want a public answer – was the AFA
in any way conflicted by its constant receipt, and constant soliciting of, “sponsorships” from insurance companies and
fund managers. What pressure was applied subtly, or barefaced, to the AFA when
it came to sitting across the table disputing what the FSC was proposing?
Ms Kent boasts about an increase of 60% in members in the
last two years. She should explain what proportion of that 60% came from NAB
advisers who about a year ago were given an ultimatum to join either the FPA or
the AFA , with a slightly discounted fee dangled in front of them. The biggest
threat to the AFA is not a proposed constitutional change but the power that
that NAB and other banks owning distribution can exercise on policy in a
general voting situation in the AFA – this is a blatant grab for influence,
which apparently the AFA cannot, or will not, acknowledge. If not stopped, the
AFA could revert back to the old ineffective and inept “Agents Associations”, funded and controlled by the tied offices who “employed“ those agent advisers.
Old Risky……… the fact that you use language such as “The lady doth protest, too much, methinks” highlights to me that you are still living in the past. A lack of respect to the member appointed National President of the Association of Financial Advisers. Disgusting.
Further to this, as I was a Senior Adviser at CBA for years and we were all told to choose the association we wanted to join and Common Wealth Financial Planning (CFP) would pay for it. Two choices were FPA and AFA. This was around May 2014 and it became the first time most of us ever became members of any association. Nation wide (considering the number of advisers in CFP) this would have represented at least 200 to 400 new members you would think?
It seems the leadership of the AFA should change their tittles to FSC!
The fact that they are so scared of a member vote on the LIF clearly proves that they did not consult the membership adequately before doing a deal with the FSC that only benefits the FSC! Never have the AFA conducted or published a member vote on the LIF as it stands.
The message to the AFA leadership is simple. You do not have your members support and your place is to support your members and the customers they serve, not your FSC paymasters.
The legal message it the AFA leadership is also quite clear. You have a mandated duty to call the AGM and then a mandated duty to conduct a vote and then a mandated duty to support the members wishes which will be not to support the current LIF.
Simple and no more excuses.
Well done again Mark Dunsford and the LICG you have my vote.
Here here Reality Check, well said. Come on Deborah Kent and Brad Fox – listen to your members. Call the meeting!
Reality Check, seriously? A member vote? A single opportunity to make huge decisions based on a tick a box? Despite what you claim I’m glad the AFA have given me numerous opportunities both in person and online to participate in the debate. Sorry, did you choose not to participate in any?
Just like all AFA members I received the email from Ms Kent and it frustrates me to no end that they need to send out such emails to me in the first place.
Mark Dunsford and the LICG you don’t have my vote! Rant over.
So if I’m hearing you correctly “GAA” your saying that our fearless AFA leadership should be allowed to pretend to solicit member opinion, have the ability to ignore it and do deal on behalf of the members that is not within the members or customers interests and as AFA members we should not be allowed to have a democratic vote on the subject??
Seriously “GAA”, are you living in 1940’s Germany or in 2016 Australia?!
You don’t answer my question, but expect me to reply to your questions. Selective and biased reading at its finest.
What are your questions??? Did I provide feedback? Yes it was ignored like many others. Was my opinion adequately sought? No it was not! Do I think there should be vote. Yes I do! Reading your comments is as frustrating as hearing the AFA leadership responses.
I did not need the AFA to give me an opportunity to respond to LIF propsoals, Trowrbridge and Treasury. These were public opportunities to which I threw in my 2c. The AFA supposedly represents the majority of risk specialist advisers and their input no doubt represents substantially more than my 2c. I had no direct input into the AFA responses. While I commend them on walking out on Trowbridge (who sees advisers as in the way of insurers and clients and unsurprisingly suggests advisers run a loss to hand back control to insurers via direct channels). I would have appreciated the opportunity to “tick a box” for the LIF proprosals and the AFA’s representative input. If you/they/anybody wants to dumb down the issue to “do you support the LIF legislation in it’s current format?” then dont cry fowl when we say no and point that we all want to keep the status quo. Change is warranted. Change is supported. The LIF chnages as they stand have only one clear winner…the FSC members. Let’s have a tick a box referendum…but make sure the right questions are asked. Here’s a few for you;
1) Do you support the Client Best Interest Duty?
2) Do you wish to provide advice that is “sustainable” to clients, insurers and advisrs?
3) Do you support legislation that will allow another adviser (Licencess/Bank/Insurer/Direct Insurer) to churn a policy with no recourse to them as a suitable deterrance to the inappropriate advice to replace a policy?
4) Do you support legislation that limits the amount of revenue generated to below cost for the provision of upfront advice that must meet the Best Interest Duty?
If you answered yes to 1 & 2 and no to 3 and 4 then support for LIF is not warranted.
Dan K, very glad to hear you made the effort to throw in your 2c in the public opportunities to respond to LIF proposals. I respect your views and you have some solid points. If the AFA had a ‘tick a box’ vote on the matter, would that have made any difference to the outcome? I doubt it. I don’t think there are many financial planners, if any, who completely 100% agree or support the LIF in its current format. That’s a no brainer. If the AFA and/or FPA walked out on the discussions around LIF, would that have made any difference? Highly unlikely. How would you feel if you had a meeting with a client or staff member who didn’t agree with you, turned around and stormed off? Would you welcome them back to the table? Would you have the same level of respect? Very unlikely. The FSC may be the clear winners in all of this, but it is also clear to me that blame should not be thrown solely at the AFA, collectively or at individuals for this outcome. Could they have handled things differently? Things can always be handled differently in hindsight. I personally have an issue as an AFA member with the school yard bullying tactics used by the LICG supporters to try and get what they want. Mr Dunsford and the LICG will never get my vote as a result. The AFA have my full support.
cheers GAA, we will respectfully disagree. If a staff member/client walked out on negotiations with me I would have to take it in context. If I knew the they were a representative body that had a vote and they represented their their constituency/bloc/membership I would not blame them personally. If they mounted a valid argument and had representaive views that meant something I would either have to ride rough shot over them or perhaps take notice of their views…This is not about the past. It’s about the future. There is a chance to renegotiate and right the wrongs of LIF due to the early election. If that requires fresh leadership than maybe this is a blessing in disguise. I do not support the LIF as it stands and cannot support a representative body that does. I want great advice outcomes for clients. A trade off was made…but was it the right one for clients and dare I say it non-aligned risk advisers?
Dan K, I respect your viewpoint. Although we don’t agree with each other. Thank you for a respectful discussion. Such a rarity on here.
All good mate. The clients that recieve good advice and those that give it will be the winners in the end. Let’s just make sure that’s as many as possible….
Dear AFA,
Congratulations on the quick & aggressive response on the threat to your livelihood. Does beg the question though why you didn’t have similar response to the threat to your members livelihood?
This whole situation would have been avoided if the AFA and FPA chose to fight on behalf of their members as fiercely as they fight to save their own jobs and face. They have cuddled up to the big business which has given them “the seat at the table” but they have forgotten why they should be there in the first place and who they purportedly represent.
John. Yes, some unkind people describe me as a cranky old man. But Shakespeare is as relevant today as he was in 1603, as just as acidic. Another wise man once said “those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. Recent history tells us the AFA walked out of the Trowbridge Committee farce ( or were tossed out, depending on the storyteller ) and should have got the message then that the FSC was out to eliminate commissions entirely. The FSC wants a feudal system, with advisers as the serfs, and the banks setting the price for our crops, and telling us what to plant !
.
The AFA & FPA should have stormed out like any negotiator worth their salt the moment Frydenberg started talking tough and publicly abandoned all pretence at “good faith ” negotiation, but they put tail between legs and stayed for a thrashing. The question that’s been nagging me is why, and in the absence of a clear denial from Mr Fox and Ms Kent, I have assumed that the FSC extracted their pound of flesh at that point and threatened the continuation of all those donations and sponsorships. You know, the money that funds all those extra AFA staff & “member services “
There is no better knowledge than experience ! good or bad We should all
Learn from it ! If we don’t then we really are the idiots
I can as I assume many others go back into the 80’s and 90’s when commission structures were all over the place and a 2-3 year responsibility period applied yes really !! What we learnt but seem to have forgotten was those changes all came about when tied agents ( as known then ) where extracted from the world of being classed as an employee re addressed as a contractoran and taxed accordingly at the appropriate rate And of course commission increased to supplement the issue of now being SELF EMPLOYED !! And the costs that come with it Years later the many changes made to assist the adviser in providing business to the insurer ( no bank owned institutions then) at that time have been decimated by shear greed on behalf of the banks who now own slmost every main insurer
We started with this rubbish that conferences were to blame for bad advice so let’s get rid of them ! How many millions did that save them ? No ability to achieve a reward from anyone for good work over $300 That’s conflicted remuneration they must be routing the system how dare they?
Chemists receive trips overseas for selling brand name products doctors similar ! benefits are available even to car salesman that can be rewarded for their sales but not us lets kick them in the guts once again all
In the name of achieving a better bottom line !
Every bank made not millions but billions of dollars profit in their last reports but still did not pass on the whole reserve banks reduction ? Does this not tell the government that something is rotten about all this ? I am convinced the banks run this country not the government
In the words of so
Many of you
RANT COMPLETE
It amazes me that people don’t see this is exactly the line they should have taken when what transpired with trowbirdge farce etc. By going along with the fascade of a legitimate process this gave the politicians the ammo to say that opinion is unanimous so they ran with it as to expedite politically.
I couldn’t agree more Rob. As a more recent AFA member (and completely disgruntled former FPA member) I was not given a choice to tick a box or reply to anything that resembled a seeking of my opinion. My bef with member bodies is that the board forgets it is for its members and will be held accountable by its members. Regardless of anyone’s viewpoint in this debate, this is a democratic process in action. Vote For, Vote Against or Abstain – they are the choices ahead of us. This will set the tone for the board.
I was alarmed when talking with my Practice Development Manager that his take on the LICG EGM proposal was that the AFA “could not” make any changes to commissions without 3 years notice….he wasn’t aware of the point that is at the crux of the matter “without member approval”. That tells me that the AFAs communications were effective.
Those that support Dunsford support democracy, those that don’t, support dictatorship. There are no benefits for consumers in the LIF, not one. For AFA members who want to democratically vote for or against, then support the EGM and have your say democratically rather than the naysayers hiding behind false names in a blog. Have your say and ask for the EGM. AFA members can request an EGM form from AFAresolution@gmail.com
Go on, put your money where your mouth is!
Sorry Margaret? Your full name is? Reads like an LICG supporter faking another post about the ‘form’.
Haha, how funny that someone with a tag of “Great Advice Advocate” calls out someone for not using their full/real name. Reads like an FSC troll faking a post as an advocate for positive outcomes for the banks, not the consumer
What I find ironic is that Mr Dunsford did not “want the meeting or his actions to be seen as ‘AFA-bashing’” yet his actions and your comments clearly are doing just that. I am appalled at your behavior. School yard bullying to try and get your own way. As an AFA member, Mr Dunsford and the LICG will never get my support or vote as a result. Grow up and at least start acting like professionals.
How exactly can they do it any different? They have a view they would like fellow members to hear and vote on. They have garnered the necessary support to have the matter put to members. Should the membership vote it down, I imagine that the status quo shall remain.
Schoolyard bullying? I just don’t see how that’s possible in an electronic world that is having a matter settled in a democratic fashion.
Everyone needs to take a chill pill and look at this objectively:
1. Do bad advisers need to be punished: yes (so hire more police)
2. Do good advisers need to be punished: no (then keep speed limits the same)
3. Does the matter put to the members punish more than it helps? That’s for the vote to decide.
Given where the vote is likely to be held I imagine the result will be a heavy defeat however if enough of the membership feel strongly about it, there’ll be a outcome that was unexpected.
Comments are closed.