In an email to members, AIOFP executive director Peter Johnston said the recent actions of the LICG have greatly assisted momentum for change and that the AIOFP was glad to see advisers standing up for themselves amid LIF reforms.
“Their continual pressure on the AFA board to finally admit they were wrong with supporting the FPA/FSC institutionally-biased position is welcomed and should be intensified,” he said.
“The pressure must be maintained to achieve change. Retreating to our suppressed and manipulated past position should not be an option.
“For too long the advice community has been divided and ruled by the institutional lobby. Now is not the time to back down,” Mr Johnston said.
The recent events should be a lesson for advisers when choosing to join an association, he added.
“What the advice community should learn from this experience is that being a member of any entity/association that is infiltrated and dominated by any particular faction is a politically dangerous and life-threatening [path] to tread,” he said.
“It simply just does not make commercial or political sense for any adviser to fund and politically support any entity that can and will act against you at the critical times.
“The next time you consider paying for an association membership or access to a designation, ask yourself who is going to benefit from your money and political support. Surely it should only be you, your practice and your clients and not third parties working against you.”
The AFA has choice to join with AIOFP, LICG and others to represent the truth of the LIF proposal or to continue to promote the party line of the FSC aligned machine. The number of instos who have distanced themselves from the FSC position suggests that it is shear weight of perceived numbers and money that is allowing a few to advance a fabricated position. In an ideal world the AFA members, LICG , AIOFP and others simply want the AFA board to recognise they can collaboratively work with others to fix the problem. AFA is not the problem, its leadership team’s commitment to a flawed proposition is.
Could not agree more with you Margaret, from day one the current AFA Board and CEO have ignored the NON ALIGNED Advisers, they STOPPED the discussion at the last AGM and told us all to accept it and shut up about it as it could have been worse. Well I am sorry but that was what happened in 1991 at the AMP Adviser briefing and most of us answered that with our feet as well. Keep up the good work LICG and the only reason I am paying my membership fees this year is to attend the AGM/EGM in one last effort to have them AFA Board & CEO actually do what the majority of the members want them to do and that is to OBJECT to the Life Insurance Reforms in their current format as it does NOTHING for the consumer or non aligned advisers.
The AFA Kick-started the LIF Process, the AFA can stop it; but instead the AFA Board went to great expense travelling the country telling us to just lie down and take it. When asked what the benefits were for the advice industry or more importantly clients – the questions were met with stony silence.
* Every AFA member should write to the Board and ask just how much of members’ money was paid to Mr Trowbridge?
* What are the benefits to consumers in the LIF?
* Why have a bunch of concerned advisers working in their own time managed to get the LIF reviewed and have politicians question the fairness of the LIF, while the AFA Board have not only continue to fail their members, but actually refused to help.
*WHY DIDN’T THE AFA BOARD PUT THE ‘LIF’ TO THE VOTE OF ITS MEMBERS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
*Why does the AFA Board continue to back the position of the FSC, which the LICG has comprehensively shot to pieces?
Membership organisations should be for members, if the LICG is prepared to risk everything to have fairness brought into the LIF legislation, why are the elected members of the AFA STILL DOING NOTHING?
My understanding is that there has been a large support for an AGM however the AFA leadership seem to have gone quite on the subject (except to say they want to investigate the validity of having one).
If the AFA leadership want to retain respect on this subject the AGM needs to go ahead and a proper member vote needs to be held on the LIF. Otherwise I think the damage to the AFA and leadership reputations will be irreparable.
The AIOFP may be being a little opportunistic here but in fairness it is only them and the LICG that have put up a fight against what is an appalling example of the FSC profiteering at the expense of customers and advisers.
If the AFA leadership are not prepared to do the right thing then members need to decide on whether they would wish to remain members.
I too received this email (despite never having been in the AIOFP orbit (as I am authorised by an institutional licencee). Apart from seeing this as a very divisive play from an association with no real interest in the issue, I have grave concerns of how they got my contact details in the first place- I’m sure I’ve never had to tick whether I’,m a member of the AFA on any industry surveys (where mailing lists are sold on)- the only group that has been given access to the AFA database has been LICG. I would certainly hope they are not taking “information sharing to a whole new level !”.
Even non-AIOFP members received his email. I can understand & respect the rights of my fellow AFA members who aren’t happy about LIF and to take action with the EGM. Mr Dunsford has stated publicly that he is widely supportive of what the AFA has achieved across a number of areas in the past. Mr Dunsford, do you agree with Mr Johnston’s opinion on our Association? If so, will you be renewing your membership? I personally view Mr Johnston’s email and comments as an opportunist act especially when he and the AIOFP feel so strongly and negatively about our Association.