Both the AFA and FPA have confirmed their proposed merged association will definitely operate under a new name.
While the name itself has yet to be finalised, the two current association names will be consigned to history.
From the FPA’s perspective, the association notes in a Q&A post on its website that, while no decision has been made as yet, “…both boards agree that a new name and branding, reflecting the new entity, would be appropriate to honour the heritage of both associations.”
From the AFA perspective, its CEO, Phil Anderson, has re-affirmed to Riskinfo there exists a genuine commitment by both associations to a new name and a new brand, delivering an outcome and a new proposition under which current AFA and FPA members can unite – together with other advisers who may consider joining the merged association.
Riskinfo will report adviser reaction and further developments in the proposed merger between the two associations.
Interesting, now that discussions between the AFA and the FPA have progressed further than originally thought by many members after reading the first members email last week, that at no stage as the been a discussion as to the NAME of the new combined organisation, if it has been agreed to by the respective boards.
I see the dab hand of a public relations firm in this little matter. It’s now an accepted tactic by anyone seeking to change a major public attitude that you don’t release the fine but important details before approval is sought. The Republic referendum was lost because voters were given just enough detail to allow opponents of the Republic to cast doubts on the political nature of an elected president. As we speak, Prime Minister Albanese is considering not releasing too many details of the Voice to Parliament in order not to provide fuel which would allow opponents of the Voice to drive through the arguments, for and against, in the proposed referendum.
But at the end of the day, the proposed amalgamation is not sub something that will interest the public nor should it attract political connotations. But, are we seriously expected to believe that at no stage has there been a discussion as to the NAME of the new organisation?
I would argue that knowing the NAME of the new combined professional organisation before we are asked to vote on an amalgamation is a nonnegotiable and fundamental principle that must be followed. I believe the name of the new organisation will tell us the true story about who will be in charge when the dust has settled after a few years of operation, and former AFA members seeking election to the new board will be up against the sheer weight of numbers held by the former members of the former FPA.
Critical to the acceptance of the proposal will be whether the words “adviser” or “financial planner” are prominent in the title. Most long standing risk advisers who are members of the AFA don’t see themselves as “financial planners” .
After listening to the debate and engaging with the AFA, I am still in the dark as to exactly WHY this proposal has arisen. Both organisations are losing members according to recent reports and that’s understandable in view of the recent government imposed limitations on our industry, but amalgamation will not cure that problem. Aggressive marketing by both organisations to potential adviser members, putting forward an attractive case as to the merits of membership, would solve that problem.
If one is to believe the comments one sees on other public adviser forums, a vast majority of the membership of both organisations are extremely critical of their own organisations as an effective voice and deliverer of member services. Clearly there has been a failure of marketing if indeed is been any marketing at all. Get out and sell your proposition, after firstly asking members what exactly it is they want, not what some board members think they want. When did the AFA board last do a survey of its membership, and solicit the views of the membership, with particular reference to their professional body accepting donations from product manufacturers, other than for a stall at the annual conference.
Phil Anderson has informed me that the AFA is not broke, but it does appear to me that if there is an amalgamation, the new body will inherit the current RESERVE founded on the proceeds of sales of former ALA/ AFA commercial premises. Nice little windfall, for the new body, particularly if the new body is effectively controlled by the board of the former FPA.
One might say it’s the cost of the marriage – a dowry of sorts!
The public reason being promulgated for the amalgamation is the Joint Voice to government. But in recent times the AFA and the FPA have joined forces in approaching government when the interests of their respective memberships have conveniently coincided i.e discussions with government on FASEA and LIF
By all accounts, that arrangement worked a treat and the outcomes were regarded, at least by the participants, as being successful.
So why do we have to amalgamate bodies which don’t exactly have the same raison d’etre, just to achieve effective representation to government. Indeed I would suggest, that if I was a Minister for Financial Services, and I was being approached by the two main adviser representative organisations, that I would be quietly impressed that those two organisations, which everyone knows have their differences, have been able to put aside those differences to make a joint effective representation of industry issues to government.
Why can’t that arrangement continue when mutually convenient?
So far we’ve been told HOW the amalgamation will work with board structure and management positions, but we are still lacking the important ingredient of the NAME of the new amalgamated organisation.
And, as far as I am concerned, I still haven’t seen the answer to the question WHY?
Let’s have the debate folks, and no hidden agendas
Bill Brown
Member Since 1988
Comments are closed.