Cardy steps up independent trade body plans

Former Professional Partnerships principal Gill Cardy is gauging opinion from IFAs about whether they are likely to financially support a trade body purely for independent advisers.
Cardy (pictured) had been linked to talks to set up a trade body to rival Aifa in August. She has now taken the idea forward and set up the IFA Centre website to register support for an organisation dedicated to representing IFAs’ interests.
The IFA Centre name has also been registered on Companies House.
Assuming enough IFAs register their support membership fees will cost £195 a year for individual IFAs, and will range from £135 to £195 per person for corporate members, depending on the number of approved persons.
Cardy is not targeting a specific number of adviser registrations before she moves to set up the body, but is aiming to establish the organisation so that it can be fully funded by membership subscriptions.
She says: “Having got some anecdotal evidence that there would be an interest in having a new organisation that focuses entirely on IFAs, one of the primary objectives is to check that there is a real commitment out there.
“Until people get the chequebook out and sign up and belong, all the good wishes in the world will frankly be not much good.”
Cardy says IFA Centre will work to ensure those who choose independent status post-RDR are subject to fair and proportionate regulation, and will work to avoid over-excessive regulation of the IFA sector.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing





Readers' comments (2)
IFABlogger | 10 Oct 2011 3:42 pm
Its a stupid idea please stop and don't waste anymore money on this project.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kevin Grimwood | 11 Oct 2011 10:14 am
Although wanting to continue as an Independant post RDR I think this is a stupid Idea set up by people who think thay are better than others and want an elitist group. This is wrong the interests of the industry are better served by one body that has the clout to speak for all.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment