Growing on merit – not by compulsion
An important statistical snippet came to light during the hearings into legally enshrining the terms ‘financial planner/adviser’ – nearly 50 per cent of planners/advisers choose not to be members of either the Financial Planning Association or the Association of Financial Advisers.
When a Parliamentary Joint Committee last week held hearings in Sydney dealing with the Government’s legislation to legally enshrine the terms ‘financial planner/adviser’, an important statistical snippet came to light – that nearly 50 per cent of planners/advisers choose not to be members of either the Financial Planning Association (FPA) or the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA).
If accurate, this is an important statistic because it speaks to precisely how representative the two largest planning organisations actually are of the total industry, and therefore just how much elements of the Government’s Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) changes might have served the interests of those organisations.
Written and interpreted in a particular way, the codes of conduct elements of the FOFA legislation and the enshrinement legislation might have served to compel financial planners to become members of one or both of the FPA or the AFA.
While it remains to be seen whether the enshrinement legislation will actually make it through the Parliament before the Federal election, it is already clear that while signing up to an approved code of conduct will obviate the need to comply with opt-in, this, of itself, will not compel planners to join either the FPA or the AFA.
Indeed, there are many planners who remain totally unmoved by the whole question of opt-in and codes of conduct, knowing that the Federal Opposition has committed to repealing that element of FOFA if it gains Government at the next Federal election.
What is also already clear is that if the enshrinement legislation fails to make it through the Parliament during the busy Budget sitting weeks and before the Federal election, then it will probably never see the light of day.
While the Coalition is unlikely to move to repeal the legislation once it is enacted, the Opposition spokesman on Financial Services, Senator Mathias Cormann, has made it clear that he does not believe enshrinement is warranted.
The bottom line, then – for both the FPA and the AFA – is that the political calendar is moving at such a pace that they will not be reaping a membership/revenue dividend from the legislative and regulatory framework generated by the Government over the past three years.
This should not be regarded as a negative outcome for the financial planning industry.
Rather, planners should accept the positive elements of the FOFA changes, and in the event that the enshrinement legislation is passed, the manner in which this will help lift public perceptions of their calling.
Organisations which seek to represent the interests of industries or professions should not need to resort to legislative or regulatory compulsion.
AUTHOR
Staff Writer
Recommended for you
In this episode of Relative Return, host Laura Dew speaks with Steve Johnson, founder and CIO at Forager Funds Management, about the impact of human psychology on investing and whether fund managers can ever beat algorithms.
In this episode of Relative Return, host Laura Dew speaks with Daniel Bower, chief product officer at FinClear, and Bill Keogh, chief executive of Transact1 (a FinClear subsidiary) to discuss cash as an asset class.
In this episode of Relative Return, host Maja Garaca Djurdjevic is joined by shadow treasurer Angus Taylor to discuss the current state of the financial advice sector, the economy, the housing affordability crisis and more.
In this episode of Relative Return, host Laura Dew speaks with Andrew Mitchell, director and senior portfolio manager at Ophir Asset Management, about why he loves working in fund management and the lessons he’s learnt in a decade of running a firm.
