PAA: Meeting failure could hold up Financial Advice NZ
PAA members are being told it was "disheartening" that the association could not get quorum for its recent annual general meeting in Auckland - and they'll need to do better if the establishment of Financial Advice NZ is to happen smoothly.
Wednesday, November 22nd 2017, 6:00AM 
3 Comments
President Bruce Cortesi wrote to members after the association could not reach the 15 members required for its annual general meeting last month.
Only 14 showed up.
Cortesi said, while Financial Advice NZ was being established, the roles of existing professional associations needed to be maintained - and members' obligations continued.
He said it was disheartening that the quorum could not be met. The association is trying again in Christchurch.
"I do note however that the PAA is not alone in what appears to be 'member apathy' in respect of SGMs and AGMs. It appears that today’s reality is that unless an adviser is directly affected at a personal business level, then they decide to leave it to the personal expense of others to sort out," he said.
"This attitude if left to continue could have serious consequences and undermine the success to create a successful, engaging and rewarding profession of the future."
The PAA is also planning a special general meeting to discuss its legacy trust, which holds the proceeds of the sale of its holiday homes.
Cortesi said it was imperative that the meeting went ahead. If it did not, it could delay that wind-up process of the PAA and the transition to complete the establishment of Financial Advice New Zealand.
It had been rumoured that the legacy trust money would be used to help kickstart Financial Advice NZ, but chief executive Rod Severn said that was not true.
| « Active managers go passive | Mann on a mission to diversify financial advice » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
I wonder if you're willing to be transparent and tell readers which bits I got wrong and which bits, if any, I might have gotten right?
My informants have usually been pretty reliable in the past.
BTW "false reality" seems to me to be oxymoronic; if its false it can't be real; and if it's real, it can't false.
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
I am told all the current PAA Board present were amongst the NOs.
Can someone with more strategic understanding than me explain how a Board could promote (by the very act of putting forward the trust deed it had had prepared at probably no little expense) a proposal that they all then voted against.
My 5-second reaction is that you wouldn't want these people running a booze-up in a brewery.
But they seek a vanguard position in our profession.
So what do I not understand?