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 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.