Financial planning stands at a pivotal moment.
The demand for our profession’s services has never been higher. This presents significant opportunities to increase access and support more individuals.
Over the last decade, financial planning has matured into a profession with higher standards, better reputation and better client outcomes. Still, few would disagree it remains on a journey and has much to learn from other professional services.
As such, a fully functioning professional body is more imperative now than ever before.
Currently, the public discord between the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII) and Personal Finance Society (PFS) overshadows the space where promoting the profession should be the focus.
The past two years of internal strife between the PFS and CII have undermined its credibility
My hope is that, whatever the conclusion, it’s resolved smoothly and in a timely fashion. The ongoing public disagreements do not enhance our reputation.
The PFS, as the leading professional body for financial planners, has significantly transformed the reputation of our industry over the last decade. It is crucial it functions properly to support the profession’s continued development.
The past two years of internal strife between it and the CII have undermined its credibility.
A small number of advisers are starting to vote with their feet – or, at least, getting a foot into the camp of the Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment (CISI).
Resolving these issues matters so much to financial planning
The recent voting by advisers voicing their dissatisfaction at the AGM demonstrates the way the CII is managing through the PFS is not working. How this is resolved in a way that supports financial planners remains unclear.
What is most disappointing is how so little some of those involved have chosen to engage in these discussions. It’s only a matter of time before the larger firms, who influence thousands of advisers, start to lose interest in assisting.
Resolving these issues matters so much to financial planning. Not only do they impact the profession’s development and reputation, but they also detract from the key issues and opportunities going forward.
The next generation of talent is reversing. Recent Financial Conduct Authority data showed only 6% of all advisers were under 30 and only 25% under 40. The proportion of advisers over 50 increased from 47% to 51% over the past two years, despite all the focus on retiring advisers and consolidation.
The proportion of advisers over 50 increased from 47% to 51% over the past two years, despite all the focus on retiring advisers and consolidation
How does financial planning develop in a world of artificial intelligence and finfluencers, where people will engage with unqualified individuals as a first point of advice?
The need to develop better standards, best practices and methods to help navigate the ever-increasing regulatory burden is a critical role that most professional bodies should address.
If the differences between the CII and PFS cannot be resolved, perhaps a more fundamental change is the way forward. This possibility is already on the table, with the new chief executive recognising independence for the PFS is an option.
Such public discord is seldom seen in other professions. The PFS’ website states the importance of professionalism, technical knowledge, client service and securing the public’s confidence.
I’m not convinced we are seeing this play out and being delivered against. We need stability and an undistracted professional body focused on addressing the challenges our industry faces.
Ed Dymott is chief executive officer at Benchmark Capital
Agree with the main point Ed makes here, but we also need to understand that the main controversy is about CII controlling PFS assets and the fact that PFS members are not in a position to take back control of the PFS Board.
Easier option is just to find another qualification provider that is willing to champion the IFA industry.
The unaccountable accounting of the Covert Infiltration Institute is unaccountably horrifying, and beyond most of what accountablity it preaches.
Quite how it is beyond the FCA and, for that matter HMRC, to allow a huge interest free loan from a board it can flood to keep everything unaccountable, is mystifying given the transparency demanded in others!
CII won’t even be specific as to why twice in a year+ it has changed so many on the PFS board!
I have commented upon Barclays Bank passim… Jes Staley guilty of hounding whistleblowers – a criminal offence – sound familiar? (Now he is implacated in the G Epstein mess). Still, at least in the end Barclays did not mark its own homework…
CII’s own internal sleuths said all OK here… Chairman is a fine fellow who made a (criminal) mistake… BTW… the world is lucky we revealed he is fine, but not, it seems, why we flood associates’ boards and keep their money – unaccountable indeed!!
At the heart of the dispute between the CII and the PFS is the perception amongst the membership of the PFS that funds from the PFS are being used to prop up the CII instead of being spent for the benefit of PFS members.
The CII appear to have squandered large amounts of money in recent years. Even having to sell their HQ in Aldermanbury to raise funds. To use a crude turn of phrase the CII appears to be all fur coat and no knickers.