FPA/AFA merger talks enter second member consultation
The Financial Planning Association of Australia (FPA) and Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) have entered the second round of member consultation on the proposed merger.
Members had now received a merger summary document and draft constitution and were encouraged to submit feedback over the next few weeks.
They had also received emails surveying their views on a new name for the organisation which would be reviewed with a branding agency.
David Sharpe, FPA chair, said: “The second phase of consultation allows members to review more detail on how a merged association would operate, and what it means for them as members of the FPA and AFA. Their feedback is very important to us and will help guide the next stage of the process.
“In my discussions with members over the past few months, it is clear that effective advocacy is the number one priority for them.
“We believe a merged association will result in more effective advocacy and will create a unified voice which would speak for all members, as well as the wider profession.”
The next step would be separate AFA and FPA consultative member webinars, held in late January, where members could provide any final feedback before voting would open in early February 2023.
Voting would close at the FPA and AFA EGMs on 28 February.
For the proposal to succeed, 75% of members of both associations who vote will need to vote in favour.
AUTHOR
Laura Dew
Recommended for you
ASIC has issued infringement notices to two AFSLs over financial advisers providing personal advice while they were unregistered.
Australian retirees could increase their projected annual incomes by as much as 51 per cent through comprehensive financial advice, according to a Vanguard study, but cost continues to be an issue.
AMP has announced a senior appointment to its North leadership team, reinforcing the firm’s commitment to the advice industry.
Despite the financial adviser exam being rooted in ethics, two professional year advisers believe the lack of support and transparency from the regulator around the exam is unethical.
