Principal members of the Financial Planning Association of Australia (FPA) have expressed differing reactions to the association’s planned major changes to its membership structure, as the voting dates for the decision approach.
The proposals, contained in a member consultation paper, address criticisms of the FPA as an institutionally-influenced body, and aim to shift the association’s focus to individual financial advisers.
FPA members may vote electronically from April 1 to 7 or in person at an Extraordinary General Meeting on April 7. The restructuring is the subject of the cover story in the February 2011 edition of Professional Planner, to be published next week.
Tony Gillett, director of Retirewell Financial Planning, says that these changes are necessary in order to represent a single voice for the industry.
“I really believe that [people’s assessment of] the FPA as only representing the big end of town is just rubbish,” he says.
“These changes really cut those criticisms of the FPA off at the knee.”
The FPA plans to rearrange membership categories, with the removal of the Principal member category and the addition of sub-categories for a broader Affiliate category.
According to the paper, the current Principal categories will be replaced with “Professional Practice” and “Professional Partner” under new criteria to be FPA-affiliated.
The FPA has reported a successful result so far, with more than 200 practices around the country pre-registered as Professional Practices. The chief executive of the FPA, Mark Rantall, says that 27 firms have commited to becoming Professional Partners.
“Feedback has been overwhemlingly positive and we’re very encouraged about what memebrs are saying in tersms of individual member accoutnability,” Rantall told Professional Planner Online.
In addition, both Principal Practices and Principal Partners will no longer hold any voting rights, bringing up concerns over what the membership fee stands for.
Les Batchelor, general manager of Sinclair Wilson Investment Services, says that smaller principals will bear the implications.
“I’m not sure it’s going to change a lot, except we’ll be paying a lot more in fees,” he says.
The decision to restructure membership criteria is part of the FPA’s overhaul to become a true professional industry association and set its members apart from other financial advisers.
It will continue to advocate and clarify the changes at road shows being held around the country in March before the voting begins.
This vote is a con job.
In February, Mark Rantall announced ‘Among those who have committed to become Professional Partners are AMP, ANZ, AXA, CBA, NAB and Westpac, together with many other medium-sized Principals.’
Remember he who pays the piper calls the tune!
To be a FPA Professional Partner requires that at least 75% of the groups advisers are FPA members. Those product groups mentioned above account for the majority of all advisers in Australia.
This means that FPA membership will become an employment or licensing condition controlled by the major product groups as part of a marketing and branding exercise.
This is hardly a professional association controlled by individual members.
Vote against!
Response to Paul Moran’s comments
Paul Moran has raised a very legitimate question.
Why would the FPA’s strategy appeal to the “least professional” planners?
I think there are two related reasons:
1. The FPA’s strategy requires very little of the financial planner other than payment of money to the FPA. That is, with virtually zero change to one’s behavior a financial planner can take part in a marketing campaign designed to reposition him/her as being more professional than would otherwise be the case.
2. Such an easy path to professionalism would seem to be very appealing to those who are not recognized as professionals. However, why would a person who is already regarded as a professional want to take part in a marketing strategy that is designed to put him/her in the same category as those who are not regarded as professionals? The way I see it is that there is no upside in the FPA’s strategy for the financial planner who is already seen as a professional, but there is downside.
I think one also needs to question whether the FPA’s strategy really raises educational requirements or removes the influence of large product providers. My view is that it does not, but these are separate issues.
There are also many other issues that relate to professionalism and I thank “Professional Planner Online” for providing space for such dialogue as this.
Without such dialogue our views are simply our opinions, but by constructively challenging one another’s views our opinions can evolve to being views that are widely held and soundly based.
Such dialogue amongst peers is a key ingredient of the development any profession.
I cannot see how anyone could think the FPA strategy is going to appeal to the ‘least professional’ planners. Increasing the educational requirements to the highest in the world (see FPSB data), removing the appearance of, and potential for, influence from large product providers and developing a marketing plan that differentiates, for once, quality planners (as those with the CFP designation) must be the way to a professional association.
I think many people still want to belong to an industry rather than a profession – think pharmaceuticals vs medical.
I am a bit old fashioned and I could be wrong, but I believe public perception is reasonably accurate in the long term and that people will ultimately be seen for what they are rather than what they say they are. That is, those who behave professionally will be seen as professionals and those who don’t won’t.
My gut feel is that the FPA’s strategy is likely to fail.
Why?
Here are 2 reasons for starters:
1. The FPA’s strategy does not appear to properly address the underlying factors that have led to the public’s current perception of the industry.
2. The FPA’s strategy will tend to appeal most to those financial planners who are least professional.
Bottom line for me is that I don’t think that marketing expense is sound path to professionalism – but I may be wrong.
Like Tony Gillett, I’m not convinced that past criticism of the association’s structure has been justified, but if these changes are what it needs to get all serious financial planners on board – Let’s go! Some members are not happy with the increased costs. They and all potential members would do well to compare with the cost of belonging to other true professional associations. The FPA has always been cheap which has limited the services it could deliver. The time has come for forward thinking practitioners to pay their fees – and to influence FPA spending by becoming actively involved in the association from Chapter level to the Board. We need doers not whingers!