AIOFP says too many associations claim adviser representation

Mike Taylor

Managing Editor and Publisher

3 February 2026

The Association of Independently Owned Financial Professionals has vowed to return to its 1998 foundation business model, arguing that the financial advice profession can only afford to be represented by two professional Associations.

The AIOFP’s intentions have been outlined by executive director, Peter Johnston in a letter to parliamentarians in which he argues that it is time for “fringe accounting associations and institutional players like the FSC/ABA to stay out of adviser affairs”.

Johnston’s letter said: “the AIOFP will now return to its 1998 foundation business model of assisting members with White Label platform alternatives and creating new client opportunities”.

“The intention is to generate alternative income streams to assist its funding whilst simultaneously creating benefits for Members and their clients,” it said.

His letter said that “market forces and headwinds will change the way not-for-profit Adviser focussed Associations operate in 2026 and beyond”.

“Recent ATO changes to tax status, the Adviser profession losing circa 50% of its constituents over the past 10 years and too many Accounting orientated Associations trying to infiltrate the Advice Profession will necessitate and force change to Association business models,” it said

“To further exacerbate the ATO influence, consumers encouraged to deal directly with the ATO over standard tax returns is negatively impacting Accounting Associations membership, they are subsequently trying to enter the Adviser profession to bolster numbers.

“The exit of Banks from the Advice space has been profound for Associations that relied on their in – house Adviser membership fees and generous sponsorship. The impact on the FPA/AFA was eventually terminal.

“Considering Adviser numbers have effectively halved and we still have the failed JAWG entity with 9 Associations involved, something has to give. Please note we refused the invitation to join JAWG from the outset,” the letter said.

It then went on to criticise the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC’s) claiming the regulator was seeking to scapegoat financial advisers in the context of the collapse of the Shield and First Guardian funds.

The message to parliamentarians said “the ‘elephant in the room’ question is the appropriateness of ASIC assessing their own conduct when they are solely responsible for ‘registering’ Financial Products and allowing them onto the market”.

“The Managed Investment Scheme [MIS] process has been  fundamentally flawed since its inception in 2001 but there appears to be little political will to do anything about it.”

“Over the past 25 years we estimate Consumers have had $50 billion of savings lost or impaired from failed financial products that have been through the ASIC MIS process.

“This question gets down to basic consumer protection, how can ASIC allow financial products onto the market without assessing the sustainability of the products business model including the Directors background?”