At a media briefing in Sydney yesterday, FPA chief executive Mark Rantall reflected on the recent Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (PJC) report, which recommended that “any individual wishing to provide financial advice be required to be a member of a professional body”.
Should the government approve the recommendation, its Professionals Standards Councils – of which former FPA staffer Dr Deen Sanders is CEO – will assess applications from industry bodies seeking ‘professional status’, and Mr Rantall said the FPA is currently preparing its application.
FPA general manager, policy and conduct, Dante De Gori told the same briefing that while the FPA stands to gain considerably from the proposal – which could see its membership grow from 10,000 practitioner members to as many as 18,000 – other stakeholders may also benefit, including rival associations.
“It would provide a great opportunity for the FPA but it also provides a great opportunity for any association and sets a criteria so we have a level playing field, because at the moment there are a lot of associations or groups in the market and the consumer is none the wiser as to whether those groups have any standards as to training and ethics,” Mr De Gori said.
“We feel we have higher expectations for our members and that recognition needs to be provided to our members; they don’t get the recognition they deserve by putting in that effort.”
If enacted the PJC recommendations would also see the enshrinement of the terms ‘financial adviser’ and ‘financial planner’, the FPA execs said, since only advisers listed on the government’s register would be permitted to practice.
Asked whether the FPA is worried that compulsory membership could result in an influx of ‘bad apples’, Mr Rantall said it is a legitimate concern but that the association is prepared.
“The reality is, it is far better to have people in so we can influence them, rather than having them sit outside,” he said.
“Some advisers are not members of any professional association, so where are they getting their professional standards and ethical training from? To not have it, given the noble purpose of financial planning and the impact it has on consumers, is an indictment.”
Mr Rantall also called for caution, stressing that the PJC recommendation is only a proposal and that the “devil will be in the details”.
Do you support compulsory association membership? Have your say below.
What a load of rubbish. The Licensee is responsible for training and standards, and in most cases they do a very good job. Why pay more on top for an association? Unless you have a grandfathered designation which required little work or study to achieve! Scrap the licensing system and let us all be independent like accountants, doctors and solicitors and then I will gladly join an association.
Its the biggest COI that it is mandatory to be an FPA member otherwise you lose the right to be a CFP.
The same CFP then was paid for and earned via study.
Love to see a university take away a BBus from you for not being a member of the uni once you completed and graduated
as a planner of more than 35 years standing and a member of the board of the original national body – the AIPA – that formed the FPA back in the late 1980’s I have publically stated why I won’t ever join the FPA. Once it was commandeered by the product manufacturers (fundies) through sponsorship and then even membership of their sales teams I was OUT OF THERE. It remains totally conflicted (it only recently decided against commissions, but remains in favour of – or not against – vertical integration) and being a member is more an indictment than a recommendation. NONE of my clients wants me to be in the FPA. ALL of them want me to be totally independent and unbiased, as well as transparently ethical and acting in their interests. The rest is political posturing and power seeking.
What we need is for all planners to be individually licenced and insured/reponsible for their advice. Then consumers (and advisers) will be better protected.
Will someone with the time and knowledge fix these FPA standards they keep harping on about just to raise their own revenue & rid planners of this useless body.
How do we sack the FPA and its Invoicing regime? Our industry can’t afford their tactics anymore.
Obviously not being a member won’t do it as I do not know any adviser who is a member let alone wishes to be a member.
Hopefully they cut their own throats with their self preservation strategies. Go away FPA.
Did IFA ask the AFA for a response ?
If not, why not. I have abided by its published Code of ethics for 25 years
Why does the industry media un-questionably let the FPA take the high moral ground
Surprise surprise!! This has been the FPA’s hidden agenda for decades. The recruitment of overpaid media fueling execs by the FPA was for this purpose. I will NEVER be a member of the FPA and will fight compulsory membership to any body. It’s not needed and never has been. Financial advice is very simple when you have EXPERIENCE! No amount of courses or ongoing education will cover this. Sick to death of the FPA ruining this great industry and tarnishing the majority of its planners with the same brush. We need a new co-op type of industry body. A body that isn’t trying to flog courses and memberships at any cost to its industry. The FPA needs a good clean out and a wake up call. STOP WRECKING THIS INDUSTRY FPA!!
Why would I want to be a member of a professional association where 80% of its members work in conflicted, vertically integrated business models and the association itself is indirectly beholden to financial services institutions that insist that their tied/conflicted advisers join.
Despite kicking the instos out as members a few years ago for which they should be applauded, the FPA is still indirectly influenced by them through the sheer number of insto aligned advisers who are joining.
Some advisers are not members of any professional association, so where are they getting their professional standards and ethical training from? To not have it, given the noble purpose of financial planning and the impact it has on consumers, is an indictment.
I have received nothing of the like from the FPA, however I have received a few invoices.
i do get plenty of training including ethics from other sources that I pay far less for.
Gerald, so do consumers know that some advisers don’t have a degree? Is it reasonable for consumers to know if an adviser was involved in a liquidated company or bankrupt? Perhaps divorce proceedings is of lower relevance, but a criminal conviction (regardless of the severity) does not really support the notion that advisers should be trusted to uphold and comply with the law.
Don’t hold your breath FPA for the government to require all advisers to be a member of an association.
I wonder who pushed for this proposed requirement? surely not the FPA.
“And Napoleon said of course all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” Orwell – Animal Farm
Another group of useless unproductive individuals line up at the trough with snouts salivating.
The FPA are looking to corner the market look out if you do not have a degree you wont get in, if you have a DUI you wont get in, if you have been in liquidation you wont get in, if you have had a issue in divorce proceedings you wont get in, if you weer bankrupt 15 years ago you wont get in, if you had any judgement against you, you wont get in, oh and once this happens your fees will be 5 k a year.