A merged AFA/FPA will deliver a better outcome for financial advisers and the clients they serve.
- Strongly agree (45%)
- Somewhat agree (22%)
- No change (14%)
- Strongly disagree (13%)
- Somewhat disagree (6%)
Most members of the FPA and AFA will probably have come to a decision by now as to whether they believe a combined association voice will deliver a better outcome for financial advisers and the clients they serve.
See:
AFA/FPA Merger – Questions Answered
Prime-time focus during the 2022 AFA Conference a few weeks ago was devoted to the proposed merger – and since then, both associations have been continuing their consultations to gauge the views of their respective member bases.
The merger proposition is to be put to AFA and FPA members soon. But in the meantime, we welcome your views and will report back next week…
In the past, the AFA has had a better grasp on issues that affect the Risk Advisers.
The FPA has not understood how risk advice works and still has a long way to go before they can be in a position to lobby Government or the Regulators on how to approach the best ways to rebuild the Advised Life Insurance sector.
A merged association needs to understand that in order to rebuild, Life Insurance Advice MUST be separated from Investment advice and specialist education that ONLY focuses on risk related topics must be introduced.
The current model is a total failure and does nothing to attract new people or even allow experienced Advisers who have left the Industry, to rejoin so we can all rebuild from the current ruins.
To move forward it’s been said we need to consider ” first look back to where we came from” before we plan a better pathway forward. So, if we go back to when FSR commenced on 14 March 2004 the education pathway through the UTS/Integratic, that advisers completed say 2002 and a little earlier for Risk Management, Superannuation and Retirement Planning and Estate Planning allowed them to advise in Risk products, super and basic estate planning. This served a huge part of the industry very well. Many went on to complete further education if they wanted to do the whole service of financial planning. This all seemed to work very well for advisers which also meant if someone just wanted to be a Risk Specialist they could do that. Many did!
Since then, Trowbridge, LIF, FASEA and the new financial planning degree to be completed by 2026 has turned the industry on its head. The result of this has seen a mass exit of quality experienced caring advisers from the industry. And furthermore New Entrants to our industry of degree qualified planners have been minimal. By 2026 we will see a further exit of quality experienced advisers who will not complete the new degree, but will “stay in the industry” only because they have passed the FASEA exam, which frankly in my humble opinion served no good purpose for the industry. If it did why did the Government get rid of the FASEA Board.
As Jeremy Wright succinctly articulates below, the AFA have always had a better grasp of the Risk Insurance Specialists. The FPA never has. A better model is to separate the Life Insurance Risk Advice from the Investment Advice. And the FPA need to come on board with this proposal if the merger of the two associations is to work in the best interests of both the risk and investment specialists. The current model has failed miserably. If we dare to be courageous and go back and do some of the things we did well and worked for our clients in the past, we will then be on the right track to attract new people into this great industry.
Comments are closed.