Speaking at the Association of Independently Owned Financial Professionals (AIOFP) offshore conference in Tokyo this week, executive director Peter Johnston said advisers should take heed of the political process that led to the government’s latest remuneration reforms.
“Never forget the Life Insurance Framework and how advisers were sold out,” Mr Johnston implored delegates.
“The AFA, FPA and FSC formed a political alliance and it wasn’t doing the bidding of advisers and clients, but of the institutions and life insurers.”
The AIOFP turned down an offer to take part in the negotiations as it didn’t believe taking a seat at the table alongside the insurers and institutions was in the interests of members or their clients, Mr Johnston revealed.
“We thought that 80 or 90 per cent upfront would have been a much better outcome for advisers and clients than where the AFA-FSC negotiations ended up,” he said.
“Risk advisers should be thinking about whether their association really acted in their interests or not during this process.”
we got sold a pup by the very organisations we seek to write business for – I have yet to see any evidence of support for the advisers – one could conclude we are a nuisance to a bigger picture – I point you too what has happened in the UK and its adviser ranks. Get used to it – we are not supported in our endeavours – and ultimately the client will get stiffed by the collusion of the larger players – Its always more instructive to watch peoples actions – in preference to the mealy mouthed platitudes we have been fed by all and sundry. And incidentally – relying on any politician in today’s world is borderline insane – self serving openly dishonest bunch. Mean while I will try to work through an IP claim for one client and write another today.
cheers to you all
Agree with the comments that the AFA and FPA sold us out but this article is just more self serving rubbish. The LIF has proven that corruption rules and industry bodies are all worthless.
So just to get this right – the AIOPF chooses not to take its place at the negotiating table, and then blame others for the outcome? That’s about as logical as those Americans who didn’t bother to vote in the election, but are angry at Trump being elected. With the media and the government against you, I imagine it’s not real easy to get a great outcome at the bargaining table. Is the AIOPF actually going to get its hands dirty with some real advocacy, or just keep throwing stones at those who do (or did)?
The FPA and AFA certainly did not sell out advisers. They just were not going to get anywhere as the agenda before them was extreme to begin with for the FPA AFA to salvage what they could. Remember that they were told that Labor via Shorten would indeed want a 20/20 remuneration for advisers. The FSC as the lousy crew they are are the real culprits. They had NO intention of allowing an extreme position to take hold for fear of a collapse of the adviser market but they also did not want even a 90/20 approach as we had all hoped would occur.
This LIF was a stitch up from the get go. The FPA AFA essentially stand accused not of taking the governments side but of not representing the folks missing at the table in a proper manner. This is both the adviser and more importantly the consumer.
I say this because while the government and opposition have been kicking the consumer on housing, superannuation, aged care, pensions etc, our professional associations have been letting the consumer down and by definition doing harm to the advice profession as our associations do not appear to stand for much other than self interest !
There are lessons here. (1) The AFA should now stop “sponsorships “from the enemy, in whatever form, even if it comes with more members. (2) We should have attacked from Day 1. Instead the AFA weakly waived through the ASIC “churning ” allegation(3) We needed to use a NEW hard-nosed Liberal connected lobbyist – instead some people over valued their skills and we went like lambs to a slaughter and agreed to the first ambit claim. (3) Next cab off the rank are commissions for mortgage brokers, again being driven by the banks. The few brokers I know do not think it will happen. Watch This Space boys and girls, its on ! (4) Cormann appeared at every AFA function while in opposition, making soothing noises but being very non-specific. The AFA Executive grew too close- I complained at the time to the Exec, but I was assured the folks knew what they were doing. Like Hockey before him, Cormann lost interest when given another portfolio by Abbott in 2013
And this AFA Member has not accepted LIF is a done deal !
Spot on AIOFP – For those who can’t see what LIF was all about, they have their head in the sand. But…. wait for your next email by the AFA/FPA inviting you to some no-benefit function where everyone gives themselves a pat on the back..
Short memories !! Remember all associations including AIOFP strongly support Corman and Conservatives at last election – Labor had already rejected changes to Risk Commissions ….. Conman then totally reniged on promises and it was Conservative Govt that pushed through these changes …………
The FSC caused the LIF for their own financial benefit and FPA and AFA were the compliant lap dogs. That makes FPA and AFA just as guilty as the FSC. Insto proxies saying otherwise are just another component of the whole anti consumer program of further concentration of control and financial reward for the few at the expense of the many.
WAKE UP!
You don’t know who or what will be the next target.
FPA and AFA sold advisers out
Does AIOFP do anything but blame everybody else ? Maybe if you contributed positively to the debate then it would be accepted
What a load of self-serving rubbish!
You obviously have no idea how lobbying works if you believe that the AFA/FPA caused LIF!