How many FPA/AFA members will join/renew with Financial Advisers Association?
How many members of the Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) will opt to sign up to the new Financial Advice Association?
That is the question being asked by both the AFA and the Financial Planning Association (FPA) in the wake of the strong member vote in favour of merging to form the new association in circumstances where AFA members will need to actively join the new organisation while FPA members will need to ‘renew’ to become part of the new body.
With the FPA and AFA having been the largest representative organisations for financial advisers, the most obvious alternative for those not happy with the merger is membership of the Association of Independently Owned Financial Professionals (AIOFP). The AIOFP has made a point of explaining to those making enquiries that the requirement for advisers to be registered with the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB) ended in 2021 and, with it, the need to be a member of an association recognised by the TPB.
The AFA has stopped accepting new members and has told applications that they can seek to join the new association by making a preliminary application to the FPA.
FPA chief executive, Sarah Abood who becomes CEO of the new association acknowledged to Financial Newswire that the FPA and AFA had modelled possible member attrition from the merger but declined to specify what that looked like, saying they were hopeful of retaining all members within the new organisation.
Importantly, Abood said that there would be no fee increases for members of either the FPA or AFA in joining the new body and that, in some instances, members of the AFA might see a reduction in the fees they are currently paying.
The crucial period for determining how many members will opt to join/renew with the merged body will be April and May and June when FPA when AFA members will be urged to join the new association and when FPA members traditionally renew their memberships.
Reflecting the importance of these dates the leadership of the FPA and AFA will be conducting a nation-wide roadshow between May and June selling the value of the united association.
AFA chief executive, Phil Anderson acknowledged the possibility of member attrition, commenting that the two organisations “have a job in front of them” to persuade members to join/renew.
However, he said he believed they could take a lot of confidence out of the strength of the vote in favour of the merger to create the new association.
Anderson also noted that there existed a proportion of AFA members (about 10%) who were also members of the FPA and for whom the new arrangements would likely look attractive.
The AFA legal entity is being wound-up as a result of the merger with the new association being based on the FPA legal framework.
There will be a guaranteed large bloc of renewals, courtesy of the product companies who write large cheques to the FPA to cover membership of all their advisers. This is corporate sponsorship by stealth. It is a key reason FPA & AFA have backed Levy’s consumer protection carve outs for product companies.
Phil Anderson is right. The two organisations do “have a job in front of them” to persuade members to join/renew. Show value in membership. Actually ask avdisors what their concerns are & represent the interests of advisers. The number of people actually voting on the merger tells a clear story as to how relevant the ‘new’ organisation is considered
Why would you join an organisation that doesn’t support it’s members interests?
I will only renew if the new organisation can assure members that their primary focus is on advisers best interests and wellbeing and not that of the product pushers
Have they released the number of Members for both organizations pre-vote, and then the number who exercised a vote. The difference will tell the story on renewals
As an AFA member of 35 years, I decided not to vote, because I saw the merger as a fait accompli, with the idea attractive to less experienced advisers who do not have the scars of both bodies abandoning members in political bun-fights. Those older advisers have now gone, or are fatigued out- care factor – ZERO.
The FPA do not have a track record in looking after RISK SPECIALISTS. That’s a cultural issue, and I don’t expect change, The AFA seems to think they represent the greater “need” of consumers first, and risk specialists second. They think that “positioning ” can achieve Brownie points with Government.
I will take the AMA model every time, and on the evidence to date, the AIOFP seems to offer that alternative
Both organizations put up TOKEN résistance to FASEA and LIF: in truth, did not even raise a sweat. Both organizations apparently thought there may have been revenue opportunities with FASEA in becoming “regulating” professional bodies. That was shot down by O’Dwyer
As they say, if the result is in the paper, it must be true- the coitus has occurred.. As a former AFA member, I will give them 6 months, unless my fees increase, then its bye-bye from me
“the strength of the vote in favour of the merger to create the new association”………….what was the membership of both organisations & how many people actually bothered to vote? Therein lies the real story