Redundancies at FPA

27 May 2020

The Financial Planning Association (FPA) is understood to have made up to eight people redundant ahead of announcing a restructure.

Money Management has been told that the eight staff members were informed of their status this week.

Related News:

The changes come at the same time as the planning organisation seeks to deal with a large number of exits from the financial planning industry which are expected to impact its overall member numbers.




Recommended for you

Author

Comments

Comments

Pity they didn't just support the majority of member's views and a number of years ago, instead of the bullsh*T politically correct softly softly approach, come out swinging harder against all the BS regulations that we've had shoved down our throats. If they had, perhaps they'd now be putting more people on instead of laying them off. Hopeless.

all of you guys think the FPA is bad (and they are). you should have a look at the accounting bodies. they are far far worse. totally hopeless and incompetent.

I am against all professional associations generally, because in general, they are wasteful organizations. maybe they were relevant, 50, 60, or 100 years ago.

but today, what purpose do they serve?

I think most associations days are numbered. unless they can become practical and relevant

The disconnect between the ivory tower FPA and the members happened back in porky Rantall's tenure. Lame, not wanting to upset anyone (other than members), pushing his agenda over member needs or wants. The sooner they are all gone and a proper association that represents members is created, the better.

No surprises here.

I would say this is just the tip of the iceberg. Years of pandering to Government and pushing their own agenda, rather than that of the collective of members and this is what you have. For all our membership dollars paid over the years (for those of us that did not see the light early enough), we now have an advice sector that cannot deliver cost-effective advice in an easily deliverable manner, a standards body that is so opaque, conflicted and downright a joke that we cannot advance to a profession in the true sense and levies and fees that are crippling many smaller operators. I feel sorry for those that have lost their job, but it is at the hands of FPA board and management.

@JJ,
The rot set in long before Rentall's reign.
He was just a continuation of an organisation that failed miserably to listen to it's rank & file members that capitulated and acquiesced to every self interested group with an agenda not consistent with what happens i the real world.

Given the current state of the nation, none of them at the FPA should remain.
No doubt the FPA are going to see more and more leave the industry as a result of their weak stance against over-regulation including FASEA and in time will go the way of the Dodo bird.

I'm surprised it's only 8 people made redundant? I don't think the CEO is one of them, wondering whether he will still get his $450k Salary this year including his bonus? Redundancies will help the budget, but the lost members won't. There has been little published about member numbers, how are they going? Perhaps they should have considered making redundant a number of staff and Lawyers in there going after their own members?

The membership numbers are in the annual report every year. This is a document anybody can obtain. No member login is required, it's on the internet. This is more than can be said for any of the other bodies that represent financial planners.

Yes I know, but the last annual report won't be showing the full numbers that have left after July last year through until now, renewals would be going out now and I think a lot are asking the question - why would I join? Each year the FPA would progressively highlight their membership numbers so proudly increasing throughout the year....there has been nothing the whole financial year, reason is they don't want to say.

cue the slanging of the FPA. Serious question about the comments coming about their PC decisions and pandering to Government. What are specific examples, that arent coming advisers own self interest. I mean, are the complaints there because the FPA didnt find against removal of commissions or what? What is that they could have changed?

You mention adviser's own self-interests. Isn't that what a body representing paying members (being advisers) is meant to do....represent adviser's interests?? FASEA is a classic example of where they sat back and pandered to Government (and FASEA) because they thought that their CFP program was going to be recognised and it was not until they realised that this was not going to happen in full like they thought, that they decided to change their tune and come out and challenge the deficiencies of FASEA.

Thank you, you saved me explaining the bleeding obvious to 'Bear Lee Hasaclue'

Yes, however then there is the complaints they only protected the banks. I don’t think any association can have blind loyalty to wrong doing going on. Like us the hate because they didn’t push against the tide focusing on ‘fee for no service’. Do some of these blokes want FPA to say, oh an offer is enough relax RC. Or a diploma you got in 2 weeks was adequate. Or there’s no bad eggs doing churning, all insurance salesmen are great. Making riskys ‘financial advisers’ was the fundamental mistake of all involved that brought this industry down.

Are you possibly going off on a tangent now? You have somehow now drawn risk advisers into the discussion, when i dont think there was any reference to them, relaxing standards or dropping the RC recommendations?

No, product providers creating a box called ‘Adviser Service Fee’ that could be ticked like a commission paying product was what brought this industry down.

Yep, this article will provoke a seemingly united chorus of anti FPA comments. However dig a little deeper, and you'll find the people making those comments won't be united at all. Half of them will hate the FPA for moving too far, too fast down the road of professionalism, and not lobbying hard enough to protect adviser's traditional sources of revenue. The other half will hate the FPA for not moving fast enough to impose higher education standards, and for failing to cut all ties with product providers.

That's ultimately the FPA's problem. They're trying to represent too broad a spectrum of members. In the end they are satisfying virtually no-one. They need to clearly define themselves as either an industry association or a professional association. At the moment they are neither.

No surprises on the lower member numbers, They've failed to be meaningful advocates for our industry for years... The rot started back with their sell-out around FOFA. This is my last year as a CFP... its now meaningless.

Redundancies at the FPA should start at the top and just keep on going until it winds up as a puff of smoke. Or maybe there won't be any smoke, given the amount they have been mixing with mirrors over the years.

Is Dante taking a cut on his $450K salary or will he still be rewarding himself with another bonus this year?

Not yet, that's why the redundancies are starting, he needs to get under budget numbers so he can meet a benchmark so he can get a bonus.

Made my day! They have been irrelevant since they started brown nosing to Kim Beasley all those years ago

FPA is as relevant as unions - dying breeds.... thank goodness!

Unfortunately unions are not a dying breed. They have rebranded as "Industry Superannuation", and as a result have more money and power than they ever did in the past.

Oh boy don’t they. Flowing river of money.
Any there any margin left for retail super funds?

One thing in this industry is very clear and that is being a member of the FPA on 1 July 2020 makes no sense. RIP FPA.

My prediction - FPA preparing the structure to merge with the AFA so the two CEO's can indulge in the $20 million trough courtesy of the Banks for selling out their Adviser members. When will they learn, you cannot have Insto derived CEO's operating an Adviser focused entity.....no sympathy or empathy for Advisers or clients, just puppets for the Institutions...

What $20M trough is that Nostradamus? Aren't all the banks getting out of financial advice? Wouldn't an adviser association focused on institutions have far less members and money?

Anon, its the $20m the banks have been collecting from their Advisers over the years for membership/the irrelevant CFP designation/sponsorship fees and then handing it across in one big fat cheque to the FPA....in exchange for their cooperation with O'Dywer to shaft Advisers over LIF/FASEA. This is literally blood money that has destroyed practices, caused suicides and much heartache for many Advisers and consumers. Lets don't forget that the former Chairs of the FPA/AFA were appointed to the FASEA Board to finish the job.....and now they are trying to reposition themselves as caring for Advisers - what a joke. They are both a duplicitous fraud, both boards and management should be replaced....

Add new comment