Advisers criticised for no-show
A low level of adviser turnout at recent roadshows has exasperated the Professional Advisers Association (PAA) chief executive.
Thursday, March 24th 2016, 2:39PM 
9 Comments
Rod Severn wrote to members telling them that PAA had been hit financially because a number of advisers had registered for the events but had not turned up.
The roadshows, run in conjunction with the IFA, were held in 11 centres over three weeks.
Across the country, just 191 of the 265 people who had registered with the PAA to attend the events turned up.
“I am very aware of the constraints constantly placed upon your availability by product providers, group and aggregators and other organisations all wanting a piece of your time. However, when you register to attend an event, we take it that you will attend. We book rooms and make catering arrangements accordingly. Everyone who does not turn up costs the Association approximately $80 each. See below where nearly $6,000 was wasted with no-shows,” Rod Severn said.
“I understand things happen at the last minute and we did have a couple of apologies, and thank you to those that made the effort to attend, but some of you need to lift your game here. You wouldn't put up with a potential client standing you up.”
He said it did not reflect well on the industry and the level of commitment many members had to professional development when only 22.3% of members registered to attend and only 16% turned up.
But IFA chief executive Fred Dodds said he was not unhappy with IFA members’ attendance. He said the IFA had 500 members across the events.
| « Lifetime boss hopes momentum will grow | LVR restrictions to be reviewed » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
The PAA did make a big play for the RFA market when it transmogrified into the de facto leader in the mortgage broker market! As with me, I suspect few were attracted to a spiel that incorporated AML-CFT information, along with mind-numbingly dry investment portfolio theory...
I didn't register but have to agree with Rod - if you register, then you should show, or at least proffer an apology, or be charged for the event regardless.
Rather than taking a shot at individual associations attempting to collaborate, it would make much more sense if members attempted to work towards a single entity & industry voice.
Mind you, these are the folks who actually turned up.
I resigned my membership of the IFA precisely because, despite good intentions from some, as an insurance adviser I did not find value in belonging. The PAA was much more focussed on insurance and mortgage brokers and I'd hate to see the same happen by the PAA joining the IFA.
I think we need strong organisations for each major discipline, run by members of that discipline, who properly understand it and who can lobby that discipline's members best interests.
No matter how well-intentioned the people, investment/savings advisers are different from life and health insurance brokers/advisers, fire and general brokers/advisers and mortgage brokers/advisers. The notion that one association could represent all of these diverse groups was flawed when proposed and implemented back in the nineties and is still flawed. Members of each discipline would be far better served today with their own dedicated association that was not being sidetracked trying to cater to the interests of the others. The associations could certainly collaborate when the interests of their respective members coincided and maintain their own positions when the interests of their members were at odds!
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
Might be time the PAA and dealer groups worked closer together rather than doing their own separate thing?