While at university I had a friend with whom I fell out.
Now, contrary to what people may think, I hate confrontation. I just don’t see the point in holding a grudge. Unless something truly unforgivable has been done, I’m of the opinion one should talk it out and then move on.
This university ex-friend was not of that opinion. I can’t even remember how the argument started — probably over something juvenile. Anyway, we made up over and over again, and every time I thought the issue, whatever it was, had been put to bed, it reared its head once again.
I’m not saying I was blameless in the situation. I’m sure I did something. I’m just not sure what.
If the CII refuses to justify its latest ‘swamping’ of the PFS board, trust in both professional bodies will continue to erode
After a few weeks of this cycle, we decided to go our separate ways.
Much like our fragile friendship, the truce between the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII) and the Personal Finance Society (PFS) seems to have ended once again. Last month, the CII announced that its chief executive, Matthew Hill, along with three other executives — Trevor Edwards, Mathew Mallett and Gill White — had been appointed to the PFS board.
The reasoning behind this “flooding” of the PFS board — to use the term adopted by critics — is not clear. Even when pushed, all the CII would say was that it was “clear the PFS would benefit from having more CII executives” who would be “available to input directly into discussions and decision making”.
On repeat
The CII’s move has been described as “cynical” and is likely to damage members’ trust in the institute even further. Because this is not the first time such a move has happened. It is just the latest chapter in the professional bodies’ weighty tome of discord.
Calls have been made for the PFS to break away from the CII and set up on its own
Most readers will remember that things first came to a head in December 2022, when the CII imposed its own directors on the PFS board in a highly controversial step. The CII said it had taken action due to “serious and significant” governance failures at the PFS. The PFS immediately hit back, slamming the CII’s decision, while former president Sarah Lord condemned the CII’s “aggressive” behaviour.
But the story stretches back further. For the best part of a decade, concerns have repeatedly surfaced to the effect that the CII wants to fold the PFS into something akin to a committee within the institute.
Member funds
And then there’s the issue of the money. The PFS has £19.1m of member funds that should be used to improve access, education and practice.
The CII’s move has been described as ‘cynical’ and is likely to damage members’ trust in the institute even further
However, according to Our PFS — a group set up by adviser and PFS member Alasdair Walker to ensure the PFS retains its independence — around £8.1m of these funds are currently held by CII in an intercompany loan arrangement.
One source close to the PFS claims the CII has made many bungled attempts to grab the cash, starting as far back as 2017 when former CII CEO Sian Fisher attempted to deregister the PFS as a separate legal entity. This was attempted again in 2019 and a third time in June 2021, after which Fisher resigned.
The CII has repeatedly denied that it is after the PFS’s member funds. However, for as long as it refuses to give a clear reason for swamping the PFS board with its own directors, rumours will continue to fester and trust in both professional bodies will continue to erode.
The reasoning behind this ‘flooding’ of the PFS board — to use the term adopted by critics — is not clear
Calls have been made for the PFS to break away from the CII and set up on its own. Others want to set up an entirely new body for financial planners, independent from CII influence.
In the end, I made peace with my former friend from university. Around 10 years after we graduated, I messaged her on social media and said that there were no hard feelings from my side and we should grab a coffee next time I was in Belfast. She agreed, and it’s nice to know that things are all fine between us.
I wonder if the same will ever be said for the CII and the PFS.
Lois Vallely is chief reporter
This article featured in the November 2024 edition of Money Marketing.
If you would like to subscribe to the monthly magazine, please click here.
Simple answer to the headline question – No. Yes Lois you are quite right it is getting tedious. Basically, it is a question of culture. The CII has always look down on and denigrated financial advice. Their world starts and ends with general insurance. It is a complete mystery to me why any financial adviser/planner would ever bother with the PFS when there are other perfectly suitable alternatives.
Spot on.
Requiem for the PFS….
(After the wonderful Neil Young…)
‘Hey hey my my – Rock ‘n Roll will never die’
Hey hey my my,
Zip your wallets it’s the CII…
THey blagg your hoard,
then flood your board…
Hey hey my my,
They broke the law on whistles blown,
but its OK say their very own…
They give you this, but you pay for that –
that freebie loan ain’t comin’ back…
Hey hey my my,
Their old set up is dwindling fast,
so they grabbed your cash so they can last…
Hey hey my my,
Only God loves the CII…
continues for ever at present!
I remember years ago acting as a local representative for SOFA (The Society of Financial Advisers) which merged with the LIA(Life Insurance Association) to form the PFS. That was one of the most thankless roles that I have ever had in my life. I gave up my time free of charge to try and promote SOFA. Arranging regional seminars and the suchlike. In return all I got, was a lot of moaning financial advisers saying “Why can’t you arrange these seminars on my doorstep” or “Why can’t you discuss something other than what is on the agenda.” They were a right bunch of miserable b—ards!
All’s well that ends well…
Yet I fear that won’t be the case here.
I’d love to see a split and a have an effective professional body that can have some serious clout when it comes to such things as lobbying the govt.
We seemed to have that with KR at the helm. Feels a long way from that now…
I have said many times the adviser industry needs to form its own body to take to the FCA, its own training set by itself and non reliance upon product providers, mainly. own some product which will build value over time.
Anyone as old as me will know this all started in the early 1970s. I can’t put the whole story on here, but the CII has continually worked in the area of academic training and examinations leading to a recognised academic qualification. When asked to assist in setting up a sales/adviser training, certification and standards body I understand they were not interested. Not one bit.
So the advisers in question, all successful and financially secure, set up their own body which eventually became the LIA. Much derided by some, the LIA went on to establish its own study material, exams and designatory letters, based around the advice and sales side of the profession but not in any way short of technical detail.
Many years later SOFA was the CII’s attempt to head off the LIA and of course, eventually the organisations were merged.
I will reserve my comments about what eventually happened when the CII took over the LIA and its significant assets, but most involved at the time were not happy about it and still aren’t.
The CII appears to continue to prioritise an academic approach, and its these two different cultures, which continually clash. Putting more CII officers on the PFS board is not going to resolve this at all, sadly. meanwhile the CISI grows organically offering a very good alternative to the CII and embracing the old very respected Institute of Financial Planning and offering training and qualifications for financial advisers, financial planners and paraplanners as well as running a first-class 2 day annual conference and dinner attracting delegates from around the world.
I retired some years ago but still follow all this with interest and inevitably, some sadness. The CII seems to have little grasp of what advisers need and want and appear to not be interested in finding out. The profession has moved on but the CII has not.
These comments are based on mostly first-hand observations from working with parties involved and it is not my intention to denigrate the CII as a body.