The idea that all the associations representing advisers can happily work together in the future is, I suspect, more of an inspirational goal than a reality.

While I would love to see it happen, along with the creation of a pan-industry Approved Professional Body, I’m not sure it’s likely (at the moment anyway).

Comments from the Institute of Financial Adviser association president Simon Hassan this week indicate it will fight the Professional Advisers Association’s plans to grow its membership and develop educational tracks for its members.

Added to that the NZ Mortgage Brokers Association (which for the record is the second biggest adviser association in New Zealand with more than 1000 members) has already fallen out with the other associations on this idea of the pan-industry APB. (It’s still unclear if they were pushed out or walked).

The tone of two pieces of communication from the IFA this week are, in my view, quite hostile towards the PAA and show it is prepared to fight the PAA for members and try and slow down its professional development plans.

I am not wanting to take sides in this developing stoush, but I do think Hassan’s comments are unhelpful to the situation. What is wrong with another association being able to recognise marks such as CLU and CFP if the standards are in place?

Surely that is helping to grow their public recognition and validity?

To put the PAA’s plans down with comments like: “We cannot afford to allow these important marks to be devalued. This would only confuse the New Zealand public” and “there are always imitators when you have something special,” don’t exactly exude willingness to co-operate and grow public recognition of advisers.

Indeed one of the biggest problems with these marks in New Zealand is that they are nearly invisible to the public.

Work together to grow their recognition; don’t fight over them.

The question I want to pose today is this: Did the PAA lay down a challenge to other associations this week when it revealed its strategic plan?

If so, what does it mean?

The PAA was quite open and honest this week in laying out its plan for the future. In essence it said that all life advisers in New Zealand should belong to the PAA. While the phrase wasn’t used publicly, the perception I get is that the PAA is the natural home of life advisers.

While the PAA made it clear that financial planners and investment adviser aren’t its target market, it does think that mortgage brokers are a potential pool of new members.

My take on this is that it is a sensible strategy. Many readers will have heard me espouse my adviser continuum theory.

This simply states that risk advisers and mortgage brokers have more in common with each other than investment advisers/financial planners. It’s all based on life cycles and when people need the various financial advice services. (If you haven’t heard this theory I will post it later).

Taking on this theory it seems that insurance and investment people have an uneasy relationship under one banner – I have seen this with my own eyes. So I wonder if they can co-habit together? Or should there be separate associations for each discipline?

The latter has merit. It seems that a split back to the old days where there were two associations has merit.

I’m not sure it’s necessarily a plus, but it does seem logical.

Adding to these thoughts are changes to the IFA. The grassroots feedback I hear is that this is becoming the home of investment people. Life advisers are second rate citizens. Whether this is true or not isn’t for me to say. But if this is what is being said watch out for a migration.

I also think the longer the delays in the introduction of adviser regulation and APBs then the harder it will be to create a pan-industry body. Too long to politic.

There is a heap more to say about associations – and there will be more on this later.

The answer to the question I posed in the intro is yes, it was a challenge. There is the chance of a fight for members. But I reflect on a point PAA general manager Dave McMillian made: that is associations should be fighting to get non-members signed up, therefore growing the pie. Don’t fight over what you already have.