Something journalists often take for granted is the access we enjoy to key people. It’s too easy to forget that the person sitting in Company A can’t ring up the person sitting in Company B – their competitor – and ask them how they’re tackling such-and-such an issue.
A journalist can do that. And one of the most valuable things we can do is simply to compare and contrast how two different people or organisations are tackling the same issue.
The aspects of their views and strategies that diverge are interesting enough, but it’s often where their views or strategies converge or intersect that there’s the greatest insight to be found.
Certainly, I hoped that the latter would be the case when I invited Mark Rantall and David Whiteley to participate in an on-the-record, face-to-face meeting (you can read the resultant feature, this month’s cover story, starting on Page 12).
For almost as long as I can remember, the Financial Planning Association (the FPA, Rantall’s constituency) and the Industry Superannuation Network (the ISN, Whiteley’s constituency) have been at each other over the reform and restructuring of the financial planning industry.
Just like in nature documentaries, where the cheetah is the natural enemy of the gazelle, or in DC Comics, where Lex Luthor is the arch-enemy of Superman, so have the FPA and the ISN enjoyed a somewhat adversarial relationship.
While I can’t deny that the tension between the two has provided kilometres (probably) of compelling, albeit occasionally repetitive, copy, it’s not necessarily my job to stop one side mouthing off against the other, and I sometimes wonder what they’re on about – and I mean both sides.
I’ve spent enough time listening to the FPA and its representatives to think I have a handle on the association’s goals and philosophy. Likewise, over the years, I’ve spent enough time with the ISN and representatives of the industry fund movement to think I have a grasp of what they’re on about as well.
Anyone who wants me to come down on one side or the other (for whatever that is worth) is going to be disappointed. I know I’ll be accused of copping out, or sitting on the fence. But in fact, on a range of issues, both sides have perfectly legitimate points of view.
Take the contentious issue of opt in. (There are other issues, I know, but this one serves to illustrate a point.)
The FPA quite rightly rails against government interference in what really should be a private contract between a financial planner and his or her client; the ISN perfectly reasonably expects that any industry fund member who consults a financial planner deserves to be protected against paying for a service they do not receive. They’re both sound arguments, right?
The FPA believes that its members should be held to higher standards of behaviour and ethics than non-members; ISN knows that more than half of all financial planners aren’t members of the FPA, so the only standards those planners will be held to are those enshrined in law.
To a certain degree, it’s a shame that members of the FPA must be subject to a legislative package designed to raise the basic standards in the industry, but that’s life. And it’s also a shame that the ISN isn’t a bit more willing to acknowledge that there is, demonstrably, a difference between the standards that FPA members and non-members operate under, because there is – a big difference.
This is the downside of having relatively free access to people on both sides of the debate. I realise it’s not a black-and-white issue. As much as one side is convinced it is right and the other is wrong, I’m afraid it’s just not that simple.
Legislative reform of any industry is difficult. When you’re talking about an industry that purports to lead individuals down a path to financial freedom and independence, the debate is super-charged by the emotive issues that inevitably surround someone’s financial well-being.
Let’s not forget that the Government’s objectives with FoFA were, first of all, to remove the conflicts that exist within the industry and, second, to improve public trust and confidence in the industry and its services. At the end of the day, the Government has to weigh up all competing interests and opinions and produce a package of reforms that it believes will best meet those policy objectives.
And neither side can really argue with that.
*** I’ve written here a couple of times about the inaugural Professional Planner Dealer Group Summit (DGS), which took place in early June. It was judged by those present to be an overwhelming success, giving the principals and senior executives of leading dealer groups and licensees an opportunity to meet in a non-confrontational environment and to genuinely discuss the issues facing their businesses. Quite unexpectedly, the first DGS produced a Communique which Professional Planner has passed on to the FPA and the Financial Services Council (FSC), outlining the key issues that the DGS participants want those organisations to represent to policymakers.
I’m pleased to say that DGS II will be held in the first week of December. This time, it will be focusing on the practical implementation of FoFA. It is, once again, open only to principals and chief executives, and I urge you to suggest to the head of your dealer group or licensee that they set aside a couple of days to attend.
