Cardy: United voice for advisers is a fallacy

Fallacious or pragmatic?

Seems to me we have regressed. Without being ungallant Gill has been around long enough to remember the discussions years ago that promulgated a single voice – as we were too fragmented. OK so you do have a point being ‘pure IFA’, but therein lies the rub. How many will you represent? What weight will they carry? (How much will they have under management for example and what percentage will this represent of the whole?) If you don’t achieve sufficient critical mass what influence do you imagine that you will exert? If you decide that you don’t want to join AIFA that’s your prerogative, but I really don’t see you with any momentum on your own. (You may prove me wrong – but I doubt it). Now if you decide to join forces with (say) APCIMS (if they’ll have you) then you may really be on to something. Without being unkind it is a big step from being a respected IFA or ex-IFA to being a respected Trade Body ‘grand fromage’.

Posted by: Harry Katz

Critical Mass

The single voice debate has until now been about one organisation to represent the Independent Financial Adviser community, as opposed to tied and multi-tied advisers. The single organisation established to represent IFAs is now not going to represent IFAs, but advisers of varying regulatory status with a membership criteria drawn arbitrarily where none actually exists. Critical mass and representation are of course significant issues. I wish to see an IFA community not so widly different in numbers to where we are now. This will require support, representation, clarification - things that I do not see can be well done by an organisation supporting both IFA and Restricted (in part) at the same time. And whilst AIFA claims to represent 85% of the IFA community, it can only do so while it has the two largest IFA (network) firms in its membership. If they become restricted then I will not be the only person concerned about critical mass and representation in the IFA sector.

Posted by: Gillian Cardy

You are all right..

...yet you are all wrong, therein lies the problem. More opinions than you can shake John Tiner's big stick at. BTW, what is he up to these days?

Posted by: Exasperated Me

Administration costs

So why not just have one admin organisation with various colleges. Correct me if I am wrong, there is currently NO trade organisation for tied advisers or multi-tied? The CII/PFS very quickly point out the fact they are NOT a trade organisation. AIFA has AMI, so why not have AFA with sub colleges of IFA, RFA (restricted) TFA (tied) and so on? Adviser Alliance is a seperate issue as a lot of what alan and the others do is look at the muddle the FSA is geting itself in to includin, removal of personal rights, breaching common law and human rights, whihc perhas a trade body isn't that well placed to do.

Posted by: Phil Castle

Are you still an adviser?

Gill - exactly how many clients have you advised in the last 12 months? Are you still a practising IFA? Your firm doesn't seem to have much turnover?

Posted by: Ben West

But tht's waht AIFA are doing!

Phil It is EXACTLY what AIFA are moving towards. I’m surprised that someone as in touch as you has failed to twig that this is EXACTLY the way things will work – and it has been announced as such. Do you really think I would have remained on board otherwise? There will be three colleges: IFAs Restricted whole of market (provided they are not tied or restricted to one firm). Mortgage Intermediaries (The AMI – as now) It would seem that as ever AIFAs biggest failing is self-promotion. We are too modest by half and need to learn to be more self-promoting. We need to learn and take a leaf from others who have been very good at doing this.

Posted by: Harry Katz