The adviser who called for an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Association of Financial Advisers has declined to outline any specific policy objectives or remuneration models, stating his ongoing aim is to call the meeting in order to oppose the proposed Life Insurance Framework reforms.
Now Financial Group Director, Fellow of the AFA and Life Insurance Customer Group (LICG) founding member, Mark Dunsford, said while he had sufficient AFA member support to call an EGM (see: AFA Member Calls for EGM on LIF) he would not be drawn on the exact timing of its submission.
He also told riskinfo that claims the proposed EGM would require the AFA to support the retention of upfront commissions in excess of 100% were inaccurate and the call for an EGM, and the opposition to the Government’s proposed Life Insurance Framework reforms, did not reference commission in any way and did not recommend support for any specific remuneration model.
“I want to stress that I respect the AFA for many of its past actions…”
When questioned, Dunsford declined to discuss specific policy objectives or remuneration models supported by the LICG. Instead, he stated his aim to date was to call the EGM and focus on presenting opposition to the proposed Life Insurance Framework reforms.
“My opposition to the framework is that it has no consumer benefit and will not reduce premiums for consumers or compliance costs for advisers. It will not make financial advice more accessible and will threaten small advice businesses by reducing their income, and will only benefit product manufacturers,” Dunsford said.
Despite the call for the EGM, Dunsford was widely supportive of the Association’s achievements stating, “I want to stress that I respect the AFA for many of its past actions, particularly in the areas of education, professionalism, growing the profession and attracting younger advisers into the profession.”
Note to Advisers:
We welcome your comments and in the interest of fairness, request that you properly identify yourself either in your post ID or at the end of each comment…
In a capitalist society, every product manufacturer has the right to pay whatever they wish to in order to attract the right people to distribute (for want of a better word) their product. It is simply one more cost to be added to manufacturing and service which leads to their pricing decision. My problem with what has happened is that there are laws restricting competing manufacturers from getting together and manipulating / restricting the market. Is the FSC guilty of collusive behaviour hidden in plain sight? I’m not a lawyer so I’m not qualified to say but I do remember hearing a comment from the days when John Brogden was running things which went along the lines of… ‘if I attended a meeting like this in the USA and didn’t report it, I might wind up in jail.’ Interesting times….
Let’s have this meeting and let not only Mark ,”air” his views but all the others who have grave concerns for the industry their clients and their business
I’m sorry AFA but dispite your recent comments no one to my knowledge has had a chance to put their views forward to Government This is a great opportunity to get all the cards on the table Can we get some open minded politicians along to carry these points to Canberra for further and more I depth analysis
Who knows we might actually come up with a plan that works for everyone ??
Ken Ryan
Mark has shown that he has looked objectively and has put forward a considered approach to the Life Insurance Framework, that highlights the deficiencies and points out clear anomalies, in order to make things better for all parties and all Australians going forward.
He has been unfairly targeted and those people who have attacked Mark, in all fairness should have the right to ask questions, though hiding behind anonymous names, does not allow readers to respond to, or debate issues with a real person who has the courage of their convictions to show who they are and what they stand for.
There may be some reasons we are not aware of that causes a person not to put their name down and not being put into the spotlight is a valid one, though with criticism of a person or entity, comes the responsibility of putting forward a valid argument, backed up with reasonable analysis that justifies the criticism.
Mark, you have my support and many millions of Australians who do not know it yet, though hopefully will benefit from your standing up for fairness.
Thanks as always for your comments, Jeremy. We understand there can be a number of valid reasons why some advisers prefer not to use their proper or full name when adding their views to our stories. However, in the interests of fairness, we will in future be asking for full names to be used when commenting on those articles which tend to generate more robust debate.
Peter, I agree fully with Jeremy, Full names should be an automatic requirement (as per Linkedin) on all posts to stop people with agendas hiding behind anonymous names.
If you believe in your comments then put your name to them. Simple.
It is hard to have a robust debate with an anonymous poster who possibly works for the FSC, the AFA or an insurance company.
Well done Mark for having the actual tenacity to act not just whinge or moan.
In my opinion the professional organisations have bungled this whole process and have not adequately represented their membership nor the consumers on this issue. The beauty of a democratic society is that there are mechanisms to air these concerns and then rectify should that be warranted.
The LIF reforms are nothing more that a “CARTEL” and both the AFA & FPA have bowed down to to the FSC from day one. THANK YOU Mark and all of the members of LICG, without your ongoing actions we would all be working for the banks.
Comments are closed.