FPA/AFA proxy nominations build for merger
Significant numbers of proxy vote nominations are pointing to the likelihood of sufficient members voting in favour of the merger of the Financial Planning Association (FPA) and the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA).
The number of proxy vote nominations in what represents the first week of a three week process in the merger ballot suggests that both organisations have reason to hope that the requisite 75% of members who cast a vote will vote to endorse the merger.
The numbers of proxy nominations appears to reflect campaigns being run in support of the merger on social media, with members of both organisations exhorting their fellow members to vote in favour of the merger.
Both the FPA and AFA acknowledged the number of proxy nominations so far received but both organisations said it would be inappropriate to read too much into the phenomenon.
FPA chief executive, Sarah Abood told Financial Newswire said there had been a strong response but that it would be foolish to become complacent.
“It is a reminder for members to appoint proxies or attend the meeting in person,” she said.
AFA chief executive, Phil Anderson expressed similar sentiments but said it was early in the process.
The extraordinary general meetings of both organisations will be held on Tuesday, 28 February.
The merger will take place if 75% of the votes cast by eligible voting members of both associations vote in favour of the move.
The FPA has created social media assets for use by members to support the merger including the hashtag #unitedvoice.
I voted No. We need a united voice yes, but the current voice increasingly has become a voice that has led to more Advisers buried in paperwork via bad legislation. I don’t believe they represent Advisers. The FPA has always been about representing the industry not solely Advisers and their clents. Did they consult with me on QAR… No they just went out formed the joint working authority and have said QAR is the go, when it’s clear Super funds will be replacing advisers with no education.
They see their future members as the Compliance or Marketing person in an Industry super fund not a person with skin in the game. I look back and see countless examples from the FPA that have contributed to bad legislation due a relationship firstly with Banks and now with large super funds. Countless examples that have strangled independent advice benefiting AMP et al. It’s so easy to talk to one person in AMP as opposed to listening to your members. What about the CBA advice scandal where jointly the FPA and the CBA blamed planners within CBA in return for members. Soon after we got FASEA.
These are the board members that recommended a Degree and experience for FASEA should be a Bachelor of Financial Planning Degree. Time to send a message if you care about this industry and get some real Advocacy. Let the phoenix rise from the ashes.
I voted NO too. The FPA didn’t want the Experienced Pathway. They never asked me if I want it and I DO.
Agreed. I can’t think of single example of successful advocacy on behalf of advisers by the FPA. Nor can I think of a single cents worth of value I’ve received from my thirty odd thousand dollars in subscriptions over the years. There’s no point in having an industry ‘voice’ that gets lost in translation between the practitioners & the regulators. A merger of FPA & AFA is not the best solution, it’s the least bad solution on offer. Neither organisation is viable stand-alone so let them die. The merger is about retaining executive positions & salaries. It has nothing to do about representing advisers.
Agreed. The new name should be called the CFP if they want to continue selling the CFP designation, just like CA sells CA, CPA sells CPA and IPA sells IPA.