Aifa opens its doors to restricted advisers
Share
Aifa is opening its membership to restricted advisers and will rebrand to reflect this change as part of a radical restructure.
Following a strategic review, which began in December when director general Stephen Gay joined Aifa, advisers offering a limited product range will be allowed to join the trade body which has previously only accepted independent whole-of-market advisers. Membership will not be open to single-tied advisers.
Gay says: “We are utterly convinced the way forward has got to be to represent some restricted advisers and to set our membership limits more widely than they currently are. It is right morally, it is right politically and it is right economically.
“I do not think it would be right to expel people from our organisation simply because the regulator has changed the goalposts about what it considers independence to be.”
Aifa will adopt a college structure made up of three subsidiaries - one for IFAs, one for restricted advisers and one for mortgage brokers, under the Association of Mortgage Intermediaries brand.
The three colleges will be responsible for policymaking while the Aifa board, currently known as the Aifa council, will be responsible for governance and running the trade body.
Membership will be opened to restricted advisers over the next 18 months. A decision on rebranding the trade body and any impact on member costs will be agreed by the end of the year. At this year’s PIMS conference, Gay warned of a substantial funding gap within Aifa.
Aifa was set up in 1999 as “the voice of the IFA profession”. When depolarisation was introduced in June 2005, Aifa members voted not to allow multi-tied advisers to join. No vote was held in this instance, although Aifa says the decision follows extensive research with members and non-members.
Yellowtail Financial Planning managing director Dennis Hall says: “Many current IFAs are probably going to operate on a multi-tied basis in the new world. The industry needs a voice that is loud is enough, and if membership is restricted only to independent advisers then it is just not going to have any clout.”
But Syndaxi Chartered Financial Planners managing director Robert Reid says: “Aifa already has a problem in managing its diverse membership. To add to its membership smacks of lunacy.”
Do you agree with Aifa’s resticted move? Vote here as part of our online poll.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (22)
Anonymous | 27 Jul 2011 8:40 am
I guess you have got to follow the money if you live off other peoples profits, you will not continue to benefit from mine.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
an old IFA | 27 Jul 2011 8:48 am
Getting desperate for income are you Mr Gay?
Can I remind you what the AIFA name stands for. Perhaps if you hadn't sold the IFAs down the line you wouldn't be in this mess!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David C | 27 Jul 2011 8:50 am
I absolutely disagree with this. Independence is under threat here and having heard Gay talk in an open debate with IFA’s on the subject of which was more important, independence or professionalism I could see this coming.
It is not a debate about which one is best - some of still believe in both.I would like a trade body that represents me and my views and fear that this will completely distort what our ‘independent profession’ is all about.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Derek Gair | 27 Jul 2011 9:02 am
Hello - can everybody see AIFA for what it always has been yet ???
Absolutely pathetic !!!
AIFA has been dead as far as IFAs are concerned for years this merely underscores that fact. As a result they are skint !!!!
Those IFAs who continually hung their hats on AIFA in the hope that there might be a bit if fight in AIFA to stand up for the IFAs interests - how naive is that !!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Lakey | 27 Jul 2011 9:23 am
Adviser Alliance is the only body that represents IFAs and the only body that focuses on the issues that threaten the very fabric of our industry.
We also want new members as this enables us to carry out the functions that AIFA refuses to consider. Talking can only go so far (as the RDR debacle proves) sometimes you have to get in the ring and exchange blows.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27 Jul 2011 9:29 am
Have they decided on a new name yet? I suggest Association of Independent Financial Advisers, Restricted Financial Advisers, Bank Advisers, Boiler Room Scam Artists, Holistic Lifestyle Coaches And Anyone Else Who Might Conceivably Pay Us A Membership Fee, Please God We Need The Money.
Changing letterheads etc is expensive, so it would pay to think ahead and not have to do it again six months down the line.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Incompetent Regulators Award Team | 27 Jul 2011 9:33 am
2 points here
1 AIFA needs to change its name to AFA
2 What did they ever do for IFAs? Nothing. What will they do for FA? Nothing
More beaurocrats trying to save their jobs at the expense of those who actually do the job/work.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
stephen | 27 Jul 2011 9:36 am
We stopped giving money to this ship of fools years ago.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon Mansell | 27 Jul 2011 9:39 am
AIFA is like a dog in misery and needs to be put down quickly before it can misrepresent independent advisers further.
Remember when AIFA appointed a former FSA regulator and known opponent of independence, David (FSA) Seven. One of the first things he did was try and introduce tied advisers. Now AIFA has no choice especially as it no longer represents independent advisers and many that are not obliged to be members by block Network funding have seen the light and saved their hard earned dosh. AIFA has a cash flow crisis of its own making and the sooner it changes it name and removes "independent" the better.
Will Aifa have a members vote on this?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bill Taylor | 27 Jul 2011 10:05 am
This topic has been discussed within AIFA at different times over the years and previously the AIFA Council did not approve of diluting the Independent element of its membership (hence AMI) but times have changed and many current IFAs will be restricted advisers in the future and therefore this change whilst it may not be desirable in some quarters is needed.
Some IFAs are like Newcastle supporters believing they have a god given right to win everything in sight and not understanding why they do not. AIFA is a small organisation, under resourced, underfunded, with an enormous workload competing with trade bodies funded by the Insurance Industry and the Banks and battling the FSA who have budget of half a billion pounds.
AIFA is not perfect but then few if any organisations are and one of its failings is not to blow its own trumpet about the wins it obtains for its members but is seems the same afflication applies to the Adviser Alliance. I would like to know of any concrete benefit achieved for IFAs by the Adviser Alliance. So if Alan Lakey will respond I will be interested in the answer and I would add that this is a serious question and is not meant as a criticism of Adviser Alliance but should be seen as an enquiry as to their worth.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment