FAAA has 7,851 on Adviser Register
The newly-formed Financial Advice Association of Australia (FAAA) has 7,851 members registered on the Financial Adviser Register, according to the latest analysis from WeathData.
This number is slightly lower than had been expected from the merger of the Financial Planning Association (FPA) and the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA).
WealthData principal, Colin Williams said that back in April, he had forecast that the total potential number of members of the FAAA would be 8,835 based on all advisers who had indicated on the FAR they were members of either the FPA or the AFA.
“Since then, quite a few of those advisers have ceased and a few may well be in the process of joining the FAAA,” he said. “For example, we found another 95 advisers who are still showing as members of the FPA/AFA.”
Key Adviser Movements This Week:
- Net Change of advisers – 1
- Current number of advisers at 15,712
- Net Change of (-87) for Calendar YTD
- Net Change new Financial YTD +146
- 25 Licensee Owners had net gains for 32 advisers
- 26 Licensee Owners had net losses for (-33) advisers
- 2 New licensees and 1 ceased
- 7 New entrants
- Number of advisers active this week, appointed / resigned: 68.
Growth This Week – Licensee Owners
- Seven licensee owners were up by net 2 advisers each. This included a new licensee which has commenced. ceased and restarted in the last couple of months, I’m guessing some admin / process issues. Others up by 2 include Findex, Bluewater Financial Advisors who got both advisers from Spark Financial and AIA who got one adviser each from Aware Super and Mercers.
- 18 licensee owners were up by one adviser each including; Shaw and Partners, Canaccord Group and Beryllium Advisers who continue their growth, now up by 9 advisers for the year.
Losses This Week – Licensee Owners
- Insignia down by (-3) after losing 4 advisers and hiring a new entrant
- AMP Group also down by (-3), who followed Insignia by losing 4 advisers and hiring a new entrant
- 3 licensee owners down by (-2) each including, Fitzpatricks who have now lost 16 or down (-18%) for the calendar year. WT Financial Group hired 1 new entrant but lost 3 advisers
- 21 licensee owners down by (-1) each including Count Group who are now down (-18) or (-5.5%) for the year, FSSSP (Aware Super) who are now down (-7) for the year or (-4.9%).
Perhaps FAAA will finally get the message that carrying on as an industry association in a “professionalism suit” is not good enough. They need to become a true professional association in order to attract new & lapsed members, and to have credibility with politicians and regulators.
Get rid of grandfathered CFPs, and memberships paid for by product companies.
Well if there are that many, seems about 50% of Advisers on FAR that are that stupid to continue to give their support and payment to a product focused / couldn’t give a hoot for real Advisers association, then what hope do we have.
Why any Real Adviser would continue to support the FAAAAAAAAA is hard to understand.
Maybe the GF CFP types like the CFP logo ? Half an excuse.
The rest, Why ?
On what basis do you make the claim that the FAAA is product focused? Give us some real evidence, rather than just spruiking the rubbish that comes from those conflicted individuals who like to peddle conspiracy theories. And as to the claims of membership fees that are paid by product companies, wouldn’t that be in breach of the conflicted remuneration rules? Let’s deal with facts not ungrounded and ridiculous speculation.
It is so easy to claim that the FAAA don’t give a hoot, which I don’t believe, but what do we achieve by talking others into believing this? Don’t we all want a strong professional body representing us, rather than splintering the profession with a bunch of loud red necks crying wolf. I know what I would prefer, and I think the vast majority are in the same camp.
Membership fees paid by product companies don’t breach conflicted rem rules for the adviser. They are just an employee benefit, and are no more or less conflicted than ordinary salary.
Membership fees paid by product companies are a gigantic potential conflict for FAAA however. They give product companies perceived influence over FAAA policymaking. Whether that influence is real or not isn’t the point. The point is it’s entirely inappropriate for a so called professional association, and is one of the many reasons FAAA has no credibility.
Criticising FAAA doesn’t mean we are opposed to its existence and want it to fail. On the contrary, we want it to flourish and succeed. But FPA, AFA, and now FAAA have all been chronic failures in lobbying for better outcomes for advisers. FAAA will only succeed if it acknowledges the mistakes of the past, and changes for the better.
That doesn’t mean having even more cups of tea with smiling, nodding, bureaucrats in Canberra. It means getting your own house in order so that politicians and regulators actually take you seriously.
Ok, so if you think it is not conflicted rem, because it is a direct payment by an employer (who could only in that case be the licensee), then tell me which entities are doing this and why is it a gigantic issue? Just remember that the banks have all gone. The other institutions largely run self employed models. The super funds don’t have that many advisers. And seriously, if this does happen, is the receipt of a small amount of member subscriptions such a big issue, that associations can’t manage the conflict of interest issue that it poses. Almost all associations have product providers sponsor their conferences. Conflicts exist there as well. Tell me one association that does not engage product providers in some way? If you think that one stands out, head and shoulders above the rest, then let us in on your wisdom. In any case, how do you know so much about this seemingly huge issue?
Are you making a mountain out of a molehill?
Falling over 1000 advisers short of their target should be very concerning, and should send a very clear message of how they have failed members. But in their usual way the FPA/AFA/FAAA will continue to ignore the interests of real advisers, will continue to bleed members and when they are down to a much smaller level of members will wonder how they got it all wrong. They would benefit from learning from the accounting and mortgage brokers associations who actually represent their members and get results.