The Financial Planning Association (FPA) is seeking to link the new single disciplinary body to adviser registration as a means of financial planning becoming a profession.
In doing so, the FPA is recommending that the new registration process become what amounts to “professional registration” but it is now saying that the process should be run as a reflection of the current authorisations issued under Australian Financial Services Licenses (AFSLs).
The FPA said its proposed model would make the registration of a financial planner the responsibility of their AFSL.
“The registration is then contingent on the planner’s ongoing engagement by the AFSL and effectively duplicates the existing authorisation process,” it said.
The FPA has canvassed the proposal as part of its submission response to the Treasury consultation on a Single Disciplinary Body for Financial Advisers.
The FPA argues that a professional registration should demonstrate that an individual has met their professional requirements, is in good standing in the community and is ready to serve their clients.
“A financial planner’s registration should then follow them throughout their career and be a valued symbol of their professional status and commitment to uphold professional values. The creation of a personal obligation to register is an essential component of any professional framework,” FPA chief executive, Dante De Gori said.
“It’s the missing piece to the puzzle. Similar to the legal, medical or architectural professions, the FPA strongly supports a model in which registration is the personal responsibility of each financial planner and is not connected with their employment or authorisation under an AFSL.”
“A true professional registration will have flow-on benefits for consumers as it will improve the quality of the information on the Financial Adviser Register and ensure anyone can easily check the qualifications, registration status and disciplinary record of their financial planner.
“Establishing a professional registration for financial planners is a perfect opportunity to build the Financial Adviser Register into the valuable resource that it could be,” De Gori said.
Comments
To a large extent, essentially this is what exists today. Or does the "intra-fund advice" supporting FPA have another agenda going on here?
Nope, it's quite different to what's happening today. The FPA is proposing that adviser professional registrations become completely separate to AFSLs. This removes the link between adviser and employer from a professional registration perspective. It also removes some of the control AFSLs wield over advisers to act in the AFSL holder's commercial interests. Unfortunately the first half of this article is worded in a confusing way that gives the wrong impression.
Opposing sensible suggestions by the FPA based on other disagreements or grudges you may have, is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
totally agree. its a no brainer.
Advisers taking responsibility for their own registration...not hiding behind their licensee...although they still will to some extent and that is ok as left on their own ASIC and AFCA will eat them up, and PI will be near impossible.
I 'get' your comment regarding PI. Maybe the 'professional bodies' should start organising PI availability for their members? Couldn't be that hard? ASIC and APRA will be a harder issue to address.
I actually like having the AFSL look after compliance. I would hate that to fall on my lap, in addition to everything else.
They always have another agenda. In 2010 when I asked if I should study a masters in FP the FPA tried to tell me I should do their CFP. So glad I ignored that self serving advice.
The FPA in 2010 was run by completely different people, in a very different environment. Time has moved on. Perhaps you should too.
Opposing sensible suggestions by the FPA based on other disagreements or grudges you may have, is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Actually, the FPA is now controlled by a lot of intra-fund members, who have a massive vested interest to maintain their ongoing incomes without having to chase annual opt-in fees from the fund members who are paying their meal ticket. That is today's FPA.
And how would criticising or opposing the FPA's suggestion for direct adviser registration change that?
Besides which, most intra fund advice is given by call centre staff who aren't registered advisers and aren't members of any association. The small number of actual advisers providing intra fund advice comprise a tiny proportion of FPA members.
Run back to your discounted FPA membership that your product manufacturing employer paid for you in bulk you FPA fool. When you pay for your own fees of an industry association you're welcome to debate the issues, but at the moment you've got a pretty big conflict of interest.
It's FPA members like you, are the reason why Advisers are drowning in Red tape and committing suicides. Times have changed you think. Well I'm the CEO of AwareSuper and with my excel spreadsheet of Advisers names and a single membership cheque, the FPA will do as their told. The single FPA adviser will never be able to compete against that, and if you're an FPA adviser trying to change that it won't happen. I suggest you run back to your FPA board role and await ASIC to offer you a $100K consulting gig for two weeks. Good money if you can get it.
So when the FPA comes up with a suggestion that reduces red tape for advisers, you think that's a cue for criticism of the idea, and for insulting people who support it?
YES....Based on the FPA past success record. The FPA have a conflict of interest. They're paid via the large Insto's called the Professional Partner Program. Both Treasury and ASIC appreciate that, so act accordingly. Insulting FPA fools that continue to support a body that has directly contributed to red tape, cause suicides, forced out Australians from getting advice is justified. How's that members discount going? Who pays for that hey? You probably don't even pay for own membership fee do you?
I am a FPA member. the FPA has no success. everything they put up to the government, a lot are actually very sensible solutions, the government totally discards them.
many others have mentioned before but Treasury considers the FPA as the head of the snake so they don't get past round 1.
think I will be giving my membership of the FPA a miss this June.
as much as I wish Yogi would choose better terms of reference to describe the FPA, I can't actually (sadly) disagree with what he is saying.
thanks to the other post at least I know there is another worse body than the FPA, CPAA
Calm down FPA plant, you’ve used the same response to two separate comments. Ease up and realise you’re in a democracy here - people have their grievances, quite rightly, with the FPA and AFA. Both bodies have left a lot to be desired in their approach to advocacy for members over the last 3 years or so. And let’s not for one second try and pretend we will ever be likened to the medical or legal professions, different industries with completely different legislation and history.
The fact that the government seems hell bent on retaining the AFSL system for FP's proves they really have no idea about our industry. That extra layer simply adds cost and conflicts as most AFSL's are either in it to flog their products or clip the tickets of clients and/or FP's.
I am still trying to get my head around all this. How does this add value to our clients?
Dear FPA scum, stick to organizing Golf Days in Melbourne and making backroom deals with the CBA to get more members. Let's remember the FPA places themselves first in every thing they do, insto's second, and advisers and Aussies, a distant third. I say that as a 20 year veteran of the FPA. First of all the FPA is on the payroll of large institutions. It's called the Professional Partner Program. These large insto's are now predominately groups like AwareSuper, stacked with phone based advisers. Second. The FPA only till this day still, only ever acts for itself and has taken zero accountability... FASEA is a direct result of their Mr Magoo of a CEO. The FPA is directly responsible for the death of countless Advisers and Red Tape. Thirdly, Best Interest obligations have direct implications for all advisers already registered on the ASIC's register. It's the licensee that brainwash advisers in order to get more FUM. We don't need another register or be paying more fees.
So what are the numbers? How many advisers from intra fund vs lets call them normal/small advisers? How much revenue from institutions/institutional advisers vs normal/small advisers? Unless you can quantify the control level here, it's a bit of a baseless claim - I'm not saying it's not correct, but what's the evidence?
No fake news here Bozo... You could do some research on the Professional Partner Program and the fees of that program. Whether it's $1 or millions it's a conflict of interest, that is not working for anyone any longer. The FPA certainly seems to like a cheque of $100K from Aware Super +AMP etc etc etc and compulsory membership with an excel list of names...how's that been working for you? Got to run I've another 25 hours and a $5,000 SoA for a Co-Contribution strategy.
I consider the FPA to be a thoroughly discredited and self-serving organisation.
calm down guys, most membership bodies are a relic of the past and really have no place in the modern world, are only interested in themselves and self-aggrandizement, ask any member of CPAA, CAANZ, CFA (they actually produce good research but still a revenue-generating scam)
the FPA, by comparison, is docile compared to the CPAA as an example, after all the governance issues the CPAA has had in recent years, a director just resigned this year because there was an undisclosed related-party transaction between CPAA and her Coy. in her defence, it seemed to be a genuine error, was for $11k and which was repaid. nevertheless, you would think they would be a lot more careful after the diabolical disaster they have been over the last few years.
I think the FPA is on the mend, but they need to get really aggressive. otherwise, with the number of members dwindling fast they won't survive. I don't understand why they don't merge with AFA
Due Disclosure: FPA Member, fasea qualified m.fin plan, exam passer, tpb rego on account of relevant study so don't really need to be a member
Yet those members of those Accounting bodies rallied and had those people removed. Unlike yourself where your membership body is accused of being incapable of being a code monitoring body, and just yesterday the AFA came out and said the regulatory costs will dramatically rise due to these functions being handed to Treasury. Yet you'll turn around and say Great job Dante. Ring up those Accounting bodies and ask if they get payments from Xero or give you a discount if you work for Reckon and they'll laugh at you. The problem with this industry is Advisers like you. You've got blood on your hands mate, just so your corrupt association can get a few more members from CBA.
Having any product issuer as a member of any industry profession is akin to having Pfizer as voting member of the AMA. Great comment I read on here suggested binning the Corps act and starting again - get advisers out of it, have our own legislation and code monitoring body and let ASIC given product issuers and the new body license and govern us. Whoever that person was, I hope you have a good line to your local member and are well connected so you can get it up.
Just throwing this into the mix but when people say "FPA did this or that" etc, they forget that the committees and boards are made up of, 70-80% practitioner members. In that context, the FPA executive just help with the day to day, it's practitioners who set the mission and strategy. I take the point of the professional partner program - it should have been dumped years ago.
That's a fair point ex-FPA staffer. I note the board currently seems to have a couple of non-practioners on there, and I'd say in the past, product provider employees would have also been on there.
That said, if the executive is strong, and the board week, or ignorant on corporate governance, then the board can be led around like a bull with a ring in its nose.
It'd be good to know more.
Rubbish..The FPA is like North Korea. Those executives having a lot to protect and if you disagree they tell you to just leave. The FPA is not open to debate, to be challenged or questioned.
Add new comment