Institutional vs boutiques debate resurfaces
Just a matter of weeks after the industry was canvassing the possibility of a merger between the Financial Planning Association (FPA) and the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) we have been witness to the re-emergence of one of the oldest debates in the sector — institutions versus independents and boutiques.
The assertion was made by an institutional spokesman that consumers were better off putting their trust in the majors because of the depth of their financial resourcing. There was an element of truth in what he said but a larger element of provocative humbug.
Move on a few days and there was the almost vitriolic response of some readers to concerns expressed by former Money Management Financial Planner of the Year, Neil Kendall, about high upfront insurance commissions resulting in the overselling of insurance products.
Once again, Kendall’s comments served to reignite a battle from the past — financial planners versus life advisers.
These incidents clearly demonstrate the thin veneer that has served to cover up deeply held differences within the industry — differences that serve to create ongoing negative perceptions.
What the incidents also reveal is the degree to which there are sections of the industry that continue to see the AFA as a natural home for life advisers, while the FPA is seen as the natural home for financial planners, particularly those willing to fully embrace fee for service.
Most disturbing for those advocating a merger between the AFA and FPA was the adversarial nature of the comments relating to membership of the two organisations — something that suggests neither organisation can lay claim to representing all sections of the industry.
There will be those who suggest that these recent disagreements between the institutions and the boutiques and the planners and the life advisers are a product of Money Management’s reportage. Those suggestions serve to simply shoot the messenger.
Until the industry can find a way of moving beyond the sectional and divisive issues of the past, it cannot hope to find a unified future.
AUTHOR
Mike Taylor
Recommended for you
In this episode of Relative Return Insider, host Keith Ford and AMP deputy chief economist Diana Mousina break down the spike in inflation numbers and what it means for the possibility of a rate cut as we move into the new year.
In this episode of Relative Return Insider, host Keith Ford and AMP economist My Bui explore Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s trip to the US and the critical minerals deal stemming from his meeting with President Donald Trump.
In this episode of Relative Return Insider, host Keith Ford and AMP chief economist Shane Oliver unpack the latest unemployment numbers and what they mean for a rate cut, as well as how the latest flare-up in the ongoing US–China trade dispute has highlighted the remaining disparity between gold and bitcoin.
In this episode of Relative Return Insider, host Keith Ford and AMP chief economist Shane Oliver take a look at the unfolding impacts and potential economic ramifications of the US government shutdown and the surge in gold and bitcoin prices.
