Should the AFA and the FPA merge?
- No (57%)
- Yes (37%)
- Not sure (6%)
Our latest riskinfo poll asks: Should the AFA and the FPA merge?
The question is simple, but the answer is complex.
It makes sense to picture a unified adviser organisation that represents the entire financial adviser community, where a single voice will speak louder than the sometimes fragmented individual voices of the FPA and the AFA.
As Matrix Planning Solutions Chair, Pieter Franzen, points out in his open letter calling for a merger of the two Associations:
“Each organization … has strengths that support the advice profession. We believe that one of the associations has a strong governance and professional standards capability, whilst the other has clear strengths in building adviser relationship skills and developing the next generation of advisers.”
While each association holds similar philosophical positions on many issues, two key differences that need to be addressed are:
- Future adviser remuneration models. The FPA supports a fee for service model for investment and superannuation advice, while the industry still awaits announcement of its position on future remuneration structures for risk insurance products. The AFA believes advisers and consumers should be given a choice of remuneration models that include commission as one option.
- The FPA holds itself to be a professional organisation that sets the standards by which its members operate, similar to accounting associations. The AFA is more a representative body advocating the interests of its members.
Advisers who have already contacted riskinfo hold a range of opinions. One adviser believes that neither the AFA nor the FPA has been pro-active in supporting non-aligned financial planners. He believes the proposed merger will be ‘a merger of paper tigers’.
Some advisers have commented that the thought of being a member of an association that speaks on behalf of all advisers is one that resonates, while others point out that the accounting profession appears to have been well served by its two peak associations over many years.
What is your opinion? As we said, it’s a simple question, but while the answer is complex, we want to know whether you agree or disagree in principle with the question:
Should the AFA and the FPA merge?
Add your comment now
6 Comments
No; The two should not merge because unlike the AFA, the FPA does not represent the interests of us financial advisers nor those of our clients but the principal members; product providers. This is evidenced in the FPA’s contradictory view that whilst indirect fees (commissions) are more cost effective for our risk clients they aren’t for the same clients seeking similar advice from the same firm for investment and superannuation. This is a ludicrous double standard and forcing fee for service on clients for investment advice will dramatically increase costs clients will have to pay for advice within my practice.
I agree with the above comment I think the FPA are a waste of time as they spruik double standards all the time. The AFA is not much better as they say they are working for the advisers in the market while in reality all they do is waffle on and have no real clout with anyone.
Work out a solution to what are petty problems and MERGE the 2 organisations. I think the AFA is more representative at the ground roots level of members, whilst the FPA has set higher standards of governance, education and perceived professionalism. Richard Klipin would be a good fit for the new leadership to replace Ms Jo-Anne Bloch.I am a 16 year proud member of the FPA. I am not an AFA member-yet.
Not this old chestnut again, these suggestions to merge have been around since before the FPA was “born” the AFA used to be an association for life risk writers and their particular needs.
The FPA is a wanna be and only seems to represent the big end of town and thier bottomless pockets.
From my experience of writing Risk insurance in Australia for 23 years ,is that I find the majority of FPA members whom I have met and worked with, some who have served on the FPA Board ,just don’t understand writing risk insurance and many believe it is something you dabble in when they can’t derive an income from Investments.
Taking into account this deep seated ignorance and bias, we and are clients are much better represented being separate from the FPA.
The merger would, in my opinion, be a disaster.
The FPA philosophy appears to be at odds with APA.
I certainly hope it is!
It seems that the FPA has no interest in independent financial advisers or their battler clients. The FPA appear to be totally aligned with banks as well as passively supporting industry funds!
I hope that APA don’t fall into the trap that FPA have ie. by taking the line of least resistance!
The APA should consider its position and its role very carefully.
The FPA, sadly is a lost cause!