The professional obligations of financial planners trump those of their employers and should guide their behaviour in dealing with practices or processes that may be proposed by licensees, according to the chairman of the Financial Planning Association (FPA) of Australia, Matthew Rowe.
And the chief executive of the FPA, Mark Rantall, has called on FPA members to stand up for the strides that the association and its members have made towards professional status, to differentiate themselves from planners who operate in “a professional vacuum”.
Rowe told the FPA’s Beyond the Shadow Shopper roadshow in Hobart on Wednesday that there might be times when the demands of an employer or licensee conflict with a planner’s professional obligations.
“I would like to think there will be a time, in the not-so-distant future, when people sitting in this room would actually push back on licensees, and would have the courage to push back on their employer,” Rowe said.
“It’s not about being self-employed and running your own show that gives you that control. You should not underestimate the ability that you have to change drive within a licensee.
“If there are things happening within your group that you believe do not fit within our code of professional practice and you can’t change them from within – you can’t get your colleagues together to make those changes and to act in the public interest – then I want to know about that stuff.
“You make a decision. Your role as a professional should be employer or licensee-agnostic. And I know that’s a big call for some of you; I know your livelihoods are tied up in it.
“But there has to come a day when the people in this room have the courage to make those decisions.”
Rowe said a planner’s first option would probably be to “work from within” to encourage the licensee or employer to change its practices and processes to allow planners to fulfil their professional duties.
“And if they still do not get it… have the courage to leave,” he said.
“Your professionalism is employer and licensee-agnostic. That’s it. And you should never sell that out.
“It takes courage.”
Professional pride
Planners could be assisted, however, if the term “financial planner” were enshrined in law. It would mean that the only practitioners allowed to use the term to describe themselves would also have to adhere to an ASIC-approved code of practice.
If a licensee required a planner to act contrary to the code, and the planner were subsequently ejected from the association as a result, the licensee would lose the right to describe their employee or representative as a financial planner.
Rantall, told the roadshow that it was only a year ago that the association restricted to place its focus squarely on individual practising financial planners, and to significantly reduce licensees’ involvement in and influence over the FPA.
“Financial planning is a matter of national importance. It is no less an important profession – and I would ague, more important than some – than the health or the legal professions,” Rantall said.
“What we’ve built is a professional association. What we’ve built is the world’s best educational standard in the CFP designation. What we’ve build is the world’s best code of professional conduct and standards that’s recognised by the courts, FOS and ASIC.
“And what we’ve built is strong advocacy and support for our professional financial-planner members.”
However, Rantall said the industry could not just suddenly start calling itself a profession.
“We have to do something,” he said.
“We have to look at our behaviours, we have to improve, to raise standards. We can’t just hang out our shingles and call ourselves a profession.
“The great work that you do for your clients that makes a significant difference to their lives, is all undone by those who operate in a professional vacuum and who don’t do the right thing by their clients and who denigrate and tarnish your great name as a professional financial planner.
“We need to address that, and it is time, ladies and gentlemen, that we all face up to that – and we need your help. You are leaders. You lead your clients; we call on you now to lead the profession. Help us lead the profession to the status that it needs it be, the trust respect and recognition that it deserves to have.”
The FPA roadshow attracted about 700 planners to events in six capital cities.
Professional Planner magazine was the roadshow’s official media partner.
Nice rhetoric gentlemen but you need to convince the independents that you did not sell them out over Opt In and getting your tax agents status with Shorten and the Industry Funds.You no doubt see the future being institutional advisers and accountants. It is about time the independents recongnise what the FPA is, an organisation that furthers the interests of its constituents, Institutional advisers and now the accountants, why would you want to fund your enemy?
I support whole heartedly the sentiment of this article. I applaud the courage and considerable effort being put in by the large group of dedicated planners operating under extremely trying financial conditions who have been, and are being, professional every day. Matthew Rowe and Mark Rantall in my opinion are doing a great job for the future of our industry and have my full support.
The licensees are the ones who have a financial obligation to stand behing the advice they provide to the clients of the authorised reps , who is the FPA , telling a licensees AR’s to shop elsewhere if they who are accountable want to impose their own level of standard on how their own ARs deliver their advice .
In our case we dont have any ownership of products or allow any AR to introduce an owned product to be added to our Reccomended product list , yet the FPA guidlenes allow this
FPA is made up of a majority of bank owned licensees who have potential for far more conflicts than independently owned licensees , we will stick to the ASIC guidleines and stay away from the FPA guidleines which included example SOA templates that are now considred to be far to long and unable to be understood by a
retail investor
Garry
As always we see a very high handed holier than thou approach from the FPA. This is an organisation that has been missing in action on this front for fifteen years! Now they come along as though they are the bastions of ethical conduct. Thet’s not forget that Storm was a principal member of the FPA and an overwhelming number of the advisers there were members and CFP’s.
For any member of this organisation to lecture on ethical conduct is rich!
Myles, you use the term “adviser” in the same sentence as “Storm”. I don’t understand.