AIOFP questions FPA’s disciplinary committee processes
In the midst of the Financial Planning Association (FPA) seeking to gain support for its merger with the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) it has been thrown a curve ball by the Association of Independently Owned Financial Professionals (AIOFP) questioning the FPA’s internal disciplinary processes.
The AIOFP has made public a communication sent from AIOFP chair, Professor Sarath Delpachitra to the chair of the FPA, David Sharpe, questioning the FPA’s handling of a complaint against a financial adviser who is a member of both organisations.
The e-mail communication questions Sharpe about why the financial adviser has been issued with four $5,000 fines for allegedly not acting in the best interests of a client when it the AIOFP asserts the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has not issued a final determination on the matter.
The e-mail, seen by Financial Newswire states:
“It has come to our attention that your internal Disciplinary Committee has commenced action against a jointly shared Adviser member over a client/adviser dispute well before AFCA has released a determination on the matter.
“We are informed that your committee has issued 4 x $5,000 fines for not acting in the best interests of the client and threatened expulsion from your organisation. We consider this as an act of prejudice.
The members name will remain confidential until the AFCA outcome is settled. We appreciate it if you can advise whether this process is standard procedure or an oversight by your committee. We consider it a clear breach of natural justice, procedural fairness and common decency.
“We also believe that your committee’s conduct is unnecessarily vexatious causing severe mental health problems for the member. Suffice to say the member is seeking legal advice over your committee’s conduct regardless of the final AFCA determination. We intend to support the member while respecting the outcome of AFCA.”
“We look forward to a response at your earliest convenience.”
Referencing the communication in an e-mail to AIOFP members, AIOFP chief executive, Peter Johnston said his organisation wanted to “assure the market and our members that the AIOFP believes ASIC should be the only entity dispensing monetary and other penalties to advisers”.
“The AIOFP’s only disciplinary action is to give members an option to voluntarily resign if their behavior is viewed poorly by the Board and if not acted upon, members will vote on whether they should be expelled from the membership. This has only happened once in 24 years,” Johnston’s message said.
“Understandably the member will be seeking legal advice regardless of the AFCA outcome for stress and harassment caused by the FPA behavior.”
“These circumstances strongly suggest that any future Professional Standards body of any description should be an independent entity with no Association management involvement. There is just too much potential for discriminatory, bullying and conflicted behavior in a market that is still divided by institutional partisan influence.”
Aren’t the FPA just so good to Real Advisers :-/
More vexatious and cruel to Advisers than AFCA, wow.
Why do any Real Advisers want to be FPA members ?
To keep their cfp which cost a lot of time and money to obtain. But even so, things like this, and supporting product providers over advisers make it harder and harder.
Why wouldn’t the adviser just resign from the FPA and walk away? Why does he want to remain an FPA member anyway?
My bet is he is a grandfathered CFP, and is desperate to cling on to a designation he was gifted by the FPA because he doesn’t have the ability to earn anything similar on merit.
Any adviser still with the FPA should have there head examined.
CFP means nothing to a client do they not get that?
Now CFS Certified Financial Screwed is more appropriate to what they are doing.
This organisation SHOULD NOT EXIST
Vote with your feet