View more on these topics

Aifa members vote to accept restricted advisers

Chris Hannant 480

Aifa members have voted in favour of controversial plans to allow restricted advisers to join the IFA trade body and approved its rebrand to the Association of Professional Financial Advisers.

The move to accept restricted advisers and the subsequent rebrand was voted through at Aifa’s annual general meeting in London last night.

Adviser Alliance director and Highclere Financial Services partner Alan Lakey has been elected to the Apfa council. Money Marketing revealed last month that Lakey was standing for election.

Aifa announced plans to change its name in September following the proposal in July 2011 to open up membership to restricted advisers. Membership is not open to single-tied advisers.

The proposal followed a strategic review of the organisation, led by then director general Stephen Gay. Gay left Aifa in January to join the Association of British Insurers as director of life, savings and protection.

Some industry commentators have argued allowing restricted advisers was a pragmatic response to the FSA’s new RDR definition of independence, but others felt the organisation would be unable to represent such diverse industry interests.

Aifa made a pre-tax loss of £153,665 in the year to 30 June, compared to a £194,419 loss the previous year. Policy director Chris Hannant has said the lack of a director general represents a “significant cost saving” to the trade body, though the appointment of a director general will be kept under review.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 13 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Desperate for members to stave off bankruptcy!

  2. Derek Bradley ceo Panacea Adviser 14th November 2012 at 8:44 am

    Good news and a well thought out pragmatic decision.

  3. I have to agee Derek.

    A new beginning ?? A new opportunity ??

    Now lets hope theres a bit of fight in ’em god knows this industry desparately needs a bit of that – now then boys up and at ’em before this once great industry disappears up its own a*se !!

  4. An inevitable consequence of moving into an RDR world where member numbers are definitely going to drop. RDR is going to be one of the biggest challenges this industry has ever faced and on the balance there are no winners. Apart, from wealthy people maybe, who will have little change going forward. The rest of the population, who knows?

  5. A body that represents say 8% of all advisers…… That says it all really.

  6. You IFAs have been stupid, weak and short-sighted. You have wasted so much time focussing on tied v IFA, you divided the industry and diluted the power of groups like AIFA.

    I have been in a true multi-tied environment for 10 years. I have thousands of funds from over 25 providers and platforms. Clients just don’t care! Advice is the priority not product!

    The stupidity of RDR has happened because of our industry’s weakness and lack of representation.

    LEARN!

  7. eh, sorry but i take real exception to your ‘stupid, weak and short-sighted’ comment. It’s people like you who got us into this situation with the FSA. Products not a priority !!! I have been an IFA for 33 years and i assure you my friend that clients do care and if you are doing you job properly, which includes educating clients and making sure they FULLY understand the product (TCF) (and the advice). unbelievable !!

  8. The Grey Defector 14th November 2012 at 11:11 am

    @Anonymous 10.37 am

    You are correct and let us hope that APFA can now become the body that does represent all facets of the adviser industry and also seeks out balance and accountability for whichever regulator is currently in situ

  9. Hopefully this is a watershed for adviser representation. A sensible, representative voice from someone like Alan Lakey is to be welcomed and hopefully AIFA will now ramp up their ‘recent’ positive representation of advisers, being more vocal and lobbying poor regulatory decisions. If they do, I can see me re-joining.

  10. @ 11.07
    You’ve read that wrong. He’s saying that clients dont really care about whether you have 25 or 100 product providers, it is the advice that counts.
    As long as youre not full tie.
    He’s offensive but probably right on all accounts..

  11. A Chartered Multi-tie isn’t going to struggle for clients post RDR. The IFA v 25 providers, is a subject for each individual adviser.
    Multi-ties didn’t cause our problems, full tied probably did. Having said that, remind me what our pre-RDR problem was? If you exclude the banks, we do have very low complaints.
    It’s a shame that AIFA wasn’t powerful 2 years ago. Is the industry buggered beyond repair?

  12. On independence or restricted: “Clients Don’t care” says Anonymous.

    These clients probably don’t know any better and their advisers also don’t care as they don’t know any better either. We once saw our work as possible without the internet and those who used it as being unnececessary because we didn’t understand it properly or see the need. They see IFAs as being the same as them, but just flogging from a broader range of products. In many cases they are right and there are IFAs who are fe-facto restricted already

    A great deal of other independents have been able to work effectively as planners first and with many investment solutions that simply are not granted through the pretty homogenus group of companies who offer tied agencies in the first place- going beyond the usual suspects.

    The only way to work for a client without prejudice is being independent.

    Tied or restricted = shackled.

  13. I am fully in accord with Steptoe’s Ghost (please change your nom de plume – Wilfred Brambell was a child molester!)

    There are those of us who are busting a gut to remain independent. Being restricted is undoubtedly an easier option. (For the lazy?)

    However the word restricted hides a multitude.
    There are those who a restricted by expertise, but are whole of market in what they do (pension, investments etc.) and there are those who are the old tied floggers who are restricted to providers.

    Either way as Steptoe says – shackled. Look up in the dictionary. Restricted, Limited, Controlled, Constrained, and Circumscribed – exactly the adjectives that Independents wish to avoid and of which they are so antipathetic.

Leave a comment