Hi - long time no speak...
I was wondering which way people were going to go regarding the FPA proposals to limit memberships to CFP's or AFP's (those who are enrolled in the CFP program)?
I guess you will get some idea of my views on this, but I am worried that there will be a lot of vested interest in maintaining the status quo. After all, when a body such as the FPA transitions from an industry body to a professional association it carries a lot of baggage.
There surely can be no doubt that something has to be done about our reputations as financial planners and advisers, and the FPA is the logical body to be at the front of this. However, the lack of clear action in the past has left many wondering if they are up to it. My position is that until the proposed changes are made, the FPA would not have the credibility to be able to actively lobby our position.
Most of us know that most of our clients like to deal with us. In fact, most are strong advocates for us when anyone asks. This it at odds with the public perception of planners by people who have had no experience, or who have had a negative experience. We also know that when the s%#t hits the fan, no matter what role the perpetrator has (accountant, broker, real estate agent), they all suddenly become financial advisers.
The FPA aims to differentiate between the generic terms financial adviser/planner by promoting the designation CFP as a sign of professionalism. This must be a good thing for the professionals amongst of us as the public and media wil be forced to ask 'were they a CFP?'. The FPA has been compiling a lot of evidence that shows the level of complaints and problems with CFP's are only a small fraction of those by non-CFP's. This will be used frequently by the association. If this occurs, the arguments about remuneration styles will become less important. Currently, anyone who charges their clients via 'commissions' is being vilified irrespective of their level of professional behaviour.
If you haven't completed your CFP - for whatever reason - now is looking like a very good time.
On the other hand, maybe you don't believe the FPA is on the right track and that they should remain embedded with the fund managers and large dealer groups. Perhaps you see nothing wrong with being closely aligned to a product provider, or indeed, being a part of a product distribution industry.
Most certainly the AFA is waiting in the wings to try to poach advisers and planners who are disillusioned with the FPA changes. I just have a real problem with an organisation that has completely tied itself to a remuneration model that sees nothing at all wrong with commissions - irrespective of their size and value. This sounds a bit like the advisers who actively seek out the dealer groups with the lowest level of compliance...
If this is the case, I would love to hear your comments.
Talk soon (hopefully)
Paul
I was wondering which way people were going to go regarding the FPA proposals to limit memberships to CFP's or AFP's (those who are enrolled in the CFP program)?
I guess you will get some idea of my views on this, but I am worried that there will be a lot of vested interest in maintaining the status quo. After all, when a body such as the FPA transitions from an industry body to a professional association it carries a lot of baggage.
There surely can be no doubt that something has to be done about our reputations as financial planners and advisers, and the FPA is the logical body to be at the front of this. However, the lack of clear action in the past has left many wondering if they are up to it. My position is that until the proposed changes are made, the FPA would not have the credibility to be able to actively lobby our position.
Most of us know that most of our clients like to deal with us. In fact, most are strong advocates for us when anyone asks. This it at odds with the public perception of planners by people who have had no experience, or who have had a negative experience. We also know that when the s%#t hits the fan, no matter what role the perpetrator has (accountant, broker, real estate agent), they all suddenly become financial advisers.
The FPA aims to differentiate between the generic terms financial adviser/planner by promoting the designation CFP as a sign of professionalism. This must be a good thing for the professionals amongst of us as the public and media wil be forced to ask 'were they a CFP?'. The FPA has been compiling a lot of evidence that shows the level of complaints and problems with CFP's are only a small fraction of those by non-CFP's. This will be used frequently by the association. If this occurs, the arguments about remuneration styles will become less important. Currently, anyone who charges their clients via 'commissions' is being vilified irrespective of their level of professional behaviour.
If you haven't completed your CFP - for whatever reason - now is looking like a very good time.
On the other hand, maybe you don't believe the FPA is on the right track and that they should remain embedded with the fund managers and large dealer groups. Perhaps you see nothing wrong with being closely aligned to a product provider, or indeed, being a part of a product distribution industry.
Most certainly the AFA is waiting in the wings to try to poach advisers and planners who are disillusioned with the FPA changes. I just have a real problem with an organisation that has completely tied itself to a remuneration model that sees nothing at all wrong with commissions - irrespective of their size and value. This sounds a bit like the advisers who actively seek out the dealer groups with the lowest level of compliance...
If this is the case, I would love to hear your comments.
Talk soon (hopefully)
Paul
Comments
Post a Comment