The time may be right for formal merger talks between the Financial Planning Association and the Association of Financial Advisers, according to a Money Management survey.
The survey revealed that the majority of planner respondents believe they should be represented by a single organisation resulting from a merger between the two dominant bodies – the FPA and AFA.
The survey sought to gauge the views of advisers following yesterday’s announcement from the FPA that it would be restructuring in the face of declining adviser numbers – a process which resulted in eight redundancies.
It found that out of the over 80% of respondents who wanted to be represented by a single body, 95% said they would expect the merger of the FPA and the AFA.
Of those who welcomed a broader representation for the financial planning community only one third had said they believed there was still room for the establishment of a new adviser representative body.
Asked how they believed the FPA and AFA were currently serving their needs – 72% of respondents said they were dissatisfied with the FPA compared to 51% for the AFA.
At the same time, there was strong consensus among respondents (92%) that there were too many organisations seeking to represent them.
Around the half of those who participated in the survey identified themselves as current members of the FPA and less than 30% said they were members of the AFA and only 8% said they were currently represented by both organisations.
Comments
So, bit puzzled...if 72% of respondents were dissatisfied by both of these entities, why is a merger of both entities that have done next to nothing for the adviser and allowed abhorent legislation by politicans and FSC members to prevail going to be any different. These are simply wolves in sheeps clothing making promises in the hope of surviving the repocussions. A total disgrace and good riddance to them both. FYI the CEO payouts would be how much and who pays this number...thanks members of FPA AFA for being treated as suckers.
Perhaps because they think the best way forward is to evolve the existing structures into something better, rather than constantly moaning about the past and giving up.
Expecting the same people who contributed to you being in a mess to get you out of it is wishful thinking at best.
Not sure the survey sample size is big enough to back this conclusion.
Pretty sure most of the 5,500+ CFP holders would NOT back this merger.
Why?....because these 5500 CFP holders see themselves as some higher echelon of adviser society ?
If that is the case, it is sad, self indulgent and misguided.
Are the 5500 CFP holders all incredibly satisfied with how the FPA has managed their CFP designation over the years or is it just a case they see an alternative association as inferior ?
In all my years of experience, when FPA members have attended AFA national conferences and state based meetings for their first time, they have been overwhelmed with the sense of camaraderie, meaningful and realistic education and a sense of belonging.
Truthfully, I can't guess what the whole cohort would think of those questions. My answers are;
a) yes
b) yes, pretty much
CFP Certification was the hardest post graduate study unit I have even done. Excluding the 1,000 legacy CFP who never did this (but will hold the designation for only a little while longer) you can bet that I think it's at a whole different standard.
Happy to have a collegiate relationship with other Planners - cool. I just don't think that the majority have made anywhere near the same level of professional commitment.
If that's snobbish, so be it.
precisely, and for those of us who have completed the masters in financial planning. harder and lengthier than the cfp, think the same of the cfp's. good, but not as good or as good as us.
if that's arrogant, so be it.
....and for those of us who have a Doctorate of Finance, the Masters is just a simplistic excuse and laughable.
Much harder than a Masters and much, much harder than a CFP.....and we can be called Dr. by other people which makes us feel very, very special indeed.
If that's conceited, elitist and sickening....then so be it.
thanks for establishing the pecking order so here is how I see it :
the very top (upper echelon): planners with a masters in financial planning and passed fasea exam
second tier: planners with another masters degree, completed the bridging subjects and passed the fasea exam
entry level: CFP's - those who actually completed the full cfp program
Others Category: everyone else
It is arrogant and it is extremely short sighted and perhaps also showing lack of maturity.
Well done on your studies and I am proud of you for completing a Masters all on your own and you should be acknowledged for your achievement. But remember this, if you completed it last year, then it is already outdated as we now have FASEA, will at some point have a Code monitoring body of some type and who knows what else, so the subject matter contained in your Masters will get outdated very quickly.
In ,ten, fifteen or perhaps twenty years time if you remain in this industry you will remember your Masters was the "best of the day" qualification, but you might confront someone like yourself who has just completed their "best of the day" qualification and will be say......... your qualifications are no good, mine are better because (insert argument for the time).
this series of comments is a good demonstration of why professional behavior is so important, being honest and truthful. and, not making exaggerated claims about one's qualifications or disparaging references or comparisons to others.
if you have met the minimum requirements of FASEA and the requirements of your particular specialization(s), you are fine, if you have done above and beyond that what is required including a master's or a doctorate, you are a credit to the profession. well done.
remain humble, keep the good work to yourself and keep on advancing the profession and the position of your clients and prosper, that is your reward and that is more than sufficient.
love,
Bobby
It sure is, immaturity at it's worst! Grow up!
Could you tell me how being a member of these bodies "advances the profession"? Their biggest achievement to date is the ability to witness a stat dec, and we've had a Royal Commision, annual opt in's and not one person has resigned.
hello chump see how it works?
"chump"! Mind your manners, I think the only chump might be yourself washing all your hard earned down the drain for years! FP's as an industry are fractured and act more like a "cottage industry" and then get surprised, shocked and disappointed when the the book has been thrown at us. Why? we have presented ourselves as an easy target, because we relied upon FPA & AFA.
Good luck to you, you sound like you need it!
If the FPA is at all serious about adviser health and well-being, then it should at the very least reduce member fees to zero for at least two years. That would soak up the reserves they have.
Remind me again on the value of the membership. I liked the idea of a lobby group to represent the thousands of small business owners who do not have access to our Senator Hume. But to date it seems they Lobby work has been a failure. We are drowning under a terrible spagetti mess of conflicting regulations, conflicting regulators, crazy codes, and an ombudsman service that has no independant review of them.
Why would they look after YOU and small businesses, when AMP and the like hands over a large fee and pays the fees on behalf of all those members and firms like then made it compulsory to join. The FPA dosen't know whether it looks after AMP or AMP advisers. The FPA stopped looking after the needs to advisers, regardless of who they work for, about a decade ago. The only value from membership is a nice scone at a meeting, a nice golf day, a webinar and that's about it.
The majority of FPA members join the FPA because it's a condition of there employment. You'll remember the outcome of the CBA Advice scandal. The CBA got out of jail, you got FASEA and the FPA got compulsory membership. The second element of this is that the majority of members don't actually pay membership fees, because their employer pays it for them. This situation has resulted in a lack of representation for the actual advisers themselves. So if you think that the FPA Is going to advocate on your behalf you're a fool, (you don't pay them $60,000 a year and provide a list of names) and I'd question the moral intergrity of any planner that joins an Association on those grounds, or wants or expects the FPA to be any Advocate.
Good riddance to both of them. They have both effectively been parasitic to the profession for a long time, particularly FPA. They simply do not represent their members being the advisors, rather push their own agenda's and the agenda's of the companies sponsoring them. They are both unprofessional, so how could they possibly further the cause of Financial Professionals. Good bye, the sooner the better!
Being a member of the FPA these days says a lot as to what type of Adviser you are..... and it dosen't look good. I'm thinking they are the "scum" of the advice world given how their partnerships have lead to nothing but over regulation.
Add new comment