It’s not always obvious at the time a particular event takes place just how important the event really is. It’s usually easier to be wise, or to fully understand its significance, afterwards. Politicians, for example, are experts at being wise after the event.
But it’s pretty clear that the upcoming vote on how the FPA is structured – and hence, how effectively it serves the interests of its individual members – is an important occasion.
It’s important, because it will change how the policy and direction of the FPA are influenced by institutions. It will make it clear that professional obligations attach to members as individuals; and at times these individual professional obligations may put members in conflict with their institutional employers.
It’s important, because it sends a signal that financial planners – those who are members of the FPA and sign up to its codes of ethics and conduct – take their professional responsibilities seriously, will put them ahead of their employers’ interests when they have to, and place their clients’ interests ahead of all else.
So the FPA is seeking a mandate. This is a word bandied around by politicians a fair bit, but in this case it’s accurate. The issues under consideration are clear. The association needs its members to give it an unequivocal answer to whether they support its ideas and strategy, or not.
One thing that has become very clear to me over 25 years of writing about financial services and financial planning is that too often the vocal minority hijack the really important debates. Those with the most to lose, or with the strongest vested interest in maintaining the status quo, inevitably make the loudest noise.
That’s their right, but if you were to base your assessment of the entire industry on what these few say, it would be a distorted one.
There’s a big group of FPA members out there, I dare say a significant majority, who not only support the FPA’s proposals but are heartily sick and tired of those who shout loudest to defend some of the industry’s unacceptable practices.
It’s time for that majority to act. There’s no need to make a noise or raise a fuss or attract attention to yourself. If you’re an FPA member, just vote.
Vote in favour or vote against, but vote.
Whatever the outcome, the FPA has to be able to say the outcome reflects the view of all of its members.
In this month’s cover story, Professional Planner journalist Krystine Lumanta canvasses the views of a range of interested parties. As expected, support for the restructuring isn’t universal – but the reasons given both for and against the proposal are illuminating.
***
We’ve described the upcoming vote on the FPA’s membership structure and membership as “a new dawn”. With a nagging sense of hypocrisy, we also have a feature, written by the creative director of Wrap Creative, Bruno Bouchet, on why it’s vital to avoid clichés in marketing. Marketing, perhaps, but apparently not magazine covers.
***
In the December-January edition of the magazine I outlined how absurdly easy it is, but must not remain, for someone such as myself to become a financial planner.
It provoked a range of responses. I won’t be taking up all of your offers – not all of which are physically possible anyway – but I’m heartened by the response it received in some quarters.
A good gauge was the FPA conference on the Gold Coast in November. You’d expect delegates to be broadly supportive of the FPA – they are members, after all, and care enough about the association to attend its annual conference – but I know that planners generally are not backwards in coming forwards when they disagree with something.
On the issue of education, there is more widespread agreement than I have witnessed on many other key issues over the year. It seems any moves to seriously raise the bar to new entrants will be strongly supported. While there’s some concern about how the new standards should be applied to existing practising planners, these are matters that can be dealt with, without seriously undermining the broad thrust of the reforms.
***
It’s appropriate at this time to spare a thought for our colleagues in the flood-affected parts of the country. Most notably, Queensland, of course; but at the time of going to press it appeared that the issue could become more widespread.
The financial planning industry is to be commended for its response, offering pro bono financial planning advice to those affected most.
Financial planning businesses have fared just as badly as any other businesses in the inundated areas, and it’s testament to these practitioners’ resilience and sense of community obligation that they are prepared to overlook their own misfortune and to seek to help others.
Hats off, also, to Andrea Slattery and the team at the Self-Managed Superannuation Funds Professionals’ Association of Australia (SPAA). SPAA is scheduled to hold its 2011 conference in Brisbane later this month. The Brisbane Convention & Exhibition Centre was affected by the floods, but at last report was getting back on its feet, and SPAA was committed to staging its event and doing its best to support the Queensland economy.
Simon Hoyle
simon.hoyle@conexusfinancial.com.au
