AIOFP dumps on joint associations
The financial advice community needs on three associations representing it, not the 13 entities which make up the Joint Association Working Group (JAWG), according to the Association of Independently Owned Financial Professionals (AIOFP).
AIOFP executive director, Peter Johnston has taken a swipe at the JAWG after the joint associations wrote to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones, outlining their preferences for how the Government should deliver on the Quality of Advice Review (QAR).
Johnston described the JAWG as being representative of one of the fundamental problems within the advice industry – “too many Associations from different backgrounds pushing their own agendas, confusing Canberra then dividing and ruling the Advice community ie FASEA, LIF, Grandfathering etc outcomes”.
“This letter is signed off by 13 Associations with only 2 truly representing Advisers – FINSIA/FSC/TAA/CFA Societies representing Institutions, Chartered Accountants/CPA/IPA representing Accountants, FPA/AFA/Boutiques representing Consumers/Instos and Licensees Forum is not an Association. The only relevant Associations for Advisers are SMSF and the Stock Brokers/Advisers,” Johnston told his members.
“The AIOFP chose to not support the LEVY QAR from the beginning, was not officially asked to join JAWG and would have chosen not to join anyway. The similar position we took in 2015 to not join the FSC/AFA/FPA supporting Minister O’Dywer with LIF/FASEA etc. We are unashamedly and unapologetically always representing the best interests of Advisers, no compromising.”
“With an Advice industry now downsized by 50% and still maintaining 13 Associations [many of dubious intent] the only way to correct this imbalance is Advisers NOT supporting them and NOT giving away their political capital to the ‘enemy’ – it simply does not make political or strategic sense to do that. We only need 3 Associations for the advice community, the Mortgage industry only has two and it works. “
What a waste of space these Associations are Peter.
If it’s not adviser centric get out of the space altogether!
Sick and tired of all this crap!
A point well made by Peter Johnston that most so called “advice associations” don’t really represent advisers, and the JAWG certainly does not.
However Johnston is wrong to lump the Boutique Financial Planners Association (BFP) in with FPA and AFA as being beholden to instos. BFP membership is restricted to small, independently licensed practices only. Unlike AIOFP, FPA, & AFA, it does not allow membership by planners licensed through third party organisations that are also product providers.
The big weakness with BFP is it only accepts membership from planners who are already FPA members. So from that perspective it is compulsorily aligned with the FPA. But it does not have any insto alignment of its own.
I disagree with Johnston on this one.
Yep, the marketing for the combined AFA/FPA body is well and truly underway. Recently we had a whole series of former presidents of the AFA sign a joint letter urging AFA members to agree to the unification. My view is they are well-intentioned but misguided, because the AFA/ALA that they were members of and served as presidents is not the same as it was when they were in the chair. In any event the political environment is totally different.
My greatest fear, and I have expressed this to the AFA, is that at the end of the day, when the music stops and were all on the dance floor looking for partners, I fear that the new combined organisation will still be largely controlled by the former FPA and the needs of pure risk advisers will be paid lip service and wiped under the carpet. Both organisations have a history ( FASEA, LIF) of “waving things through” because they saw, or thought they saw, an advantage in agreeing with the government of the day, forgetting entirely that they were there to serve members and consult those members on all matters before jumping on the political bandwagon.
I might be wrong and I will be pleased to admit it. I will probably stay with the new combined organisation for year are so and then go off and join the AIOFP. And I will be on the lookout for any imposed educational requirement coming out of the thought processes of the new organisation as the FPA has done for years. Risk advising is a different discipline to investment advising, and its needs are entirely different. Indeed, one of the key functions that any new combined organisation has to take on board is to ensure that ASIC stop treating risk advisers, investment advisers, stockbrokers and aged care advisers as being the same profession. That’s for ASIC but fails completely in the need to provide compliant advice at a reasonable level of cost to consumers
OLD RISKY said: “Risk advising is a different discipline to investment advising, and its needs are entirely different. Indeed, one of the key functions that any new combined organisation has to take on board is to ensure that ASIC stop treating risk advisers, investment advisers, stockbrokers and aged care advisers as being the same profession. That’s for ASIC but fails completely in the need to provide compliant advice at a reasonable level of cost to consumers”
Thank you Old Risky, the distinction between Life RISK advisers and INVESTMENT advisers (and others) is not often spoken about or considered. This discrepancy, I feel, is one of the reasons riskies have been so hard hit with thoughtless compliance and forced to go on ridiculously inappropriate educational paths and rules over the past few years. This difference should be mentioned and emphasized more in industry conversation.
So the AIOFP said they “chose to not support the LEVY QAR from the beginning”. What a totally non sensical position to take. I think that we can all agree that the financial advice regulatory regime is totally broken. Stephen Jones described it as a “hot mess”. The Quality of Advice regime is the only inquiry in play that is going to fix this mess, so being opposed to it from the start is just ridiculous. The only other groups to have been totally opposed are the consumer groups. What a nice look to have the AIOFP and Choice on the same page.
Who really is this group and what do they stand for? Have a look on their website to find out what they really stand for and what their policy positions are. Good luck. Then try to find their financial statements to see how they make money. The time has come to check who they really are.