Just as Professional Planner was going to press this month, the Financial Planning Association of Australia (FPA) released the results of its 2008 member survey. The results show that most FPA members believe their industry body is doing a better job now than it was a year ago, particularly in the area of member communication. There’s no doubt that under chief executive Jo- Anne Bloch the FPA has established its credentials as an organisation committed to greater levels of professionalism, and to improving the standing of financial planners.
The survey also suggests it’s doing a better job of telling its members what it’s doing. But the survey also pinpoints the areas where members still think more can be done – specifically, according to Bloch, “there is an expectation of better performance in the way the FPA positions itself within the industry and with the general public”. “Whilst members say we’ve done better in achieving positive media and improving public perceptions of professional planners [couldn’t have put it better myself!], these remain areas in which they clearly want even more action,” she says.
The FPA’s work on improving ethical and professional standards was ranked as the third-most valuable aspect of FPA membership (behind representing members’ interests to government at number one, and promoting financial planning to consumers at number two). Clearly, there’s an appetite among members for the FPA to push ethics and professionalism even harder. To which we can only say: hear, hear. It’s not only high-profile planning shonks and crooks that the industry has to grapple with and attempt to throw out – although it should be unapologetic in doing that. It has to raise standards of ethics and professionalism right across the industry.
That will mean occasionally taking an unpopular stance against major financial institutions, whose ownership of financial planning alongside product manufacturing is often at the root of many of the conflicts of interest the planning industry has to address. The FPA should not resile from standing up to its larger, institutional members when it has to. If there were ever a professional body with a mandate, it’s the FPA. The results of the survey show clearly that a stance will be supported by members, as long as in taking the stance the association is representing its members’ interests to government, promoting financial planning to the public or working to improve ethical and professional standards.
We look forward to seeing the FPA tackling head-on those issues that are instigated by and entrenched within some of its institutional members, but which run counter to members’ stated interest in belonging to the FPA. If the association is also to fulfil its members’ expectations of “better performance in the way the FPA positions itself within the industry and with the general public”, then it must be prepared to treat all members equally, regardless of size or perceived influence. That’s its real test. {mos_fb_discuss:19}
