IFSA doesn't have the numbers to be able to claim it represents the financial services industry, so its recent name change is just a rebranding, writes Mike Taylor.
Do financial planners wish to have their interests represented in Canberra by the Investment and Financial Services Association (IFSA)? Does it make any difference that IFSA has changed its name to the Financial Services Council (FSC)?
According to IFSA/FSC chief executive John Brogden, the rebranding exercise is aimed at growing the organisation’s influence and commentary beyond the core areas it has represented in the past.
In doing so, he clearly indicated that it would be looking to provide a “unified” voice for the financial services sector.
As a former politician, Brogden should know that you can spin a message any way you like, but the success or failure of any initiative is ultimately dependent on the numbers.
On all the available evidence, IFSA/FSC simply does not have the numbers to be able to market itself as a voice for all of the industry at this stage.
Indeed, there will be many within the financial planning and superannuation industries who will bluntly state that hell will freeze over before they sign up to be represented by an organisation in which the major banks and product manufacturers hold primacy.
There are those who might go so far as to use the word ‘presumptuous’ when considering the ambitions stated by Brogden and the realities that need to be addressed in building a body truly capable of speaking for the industry.
Those making up the board of IFSA/FSC might also regret seeking to model their newly-named organisation on the Minerals Council of Australia.
While the miners have certainly flexed their considerable muscle in seeking to oppose the Federal Government’s Resource Industry Super Profits Tax, their economic position and consequent negotiating power is very different to that of the financial services industry.
There exist compelling arguments for the financial services industry to speak with one voice, but the reality of deeply entrenched differences means unilateralism is not the answer.
Given the long-standing and deeply-ingrained nature of the differences that exist in the financial services industry, the delivery of a common voice is only likely to be achieved when each of the groups comes together in a mutually agreed forum.
In the meantime, the changes at IFSA/FSC represent little more than a rebranding exercise.
