OK, so maybe now is the time to talk about exactly what sort
of representative body we really want – or not, if that’s your persuasion.
In my view, one of the major problems the industry has is we
all have our own views about what we do, and how the job should be done. In
particular, there are many business models and different ways of charging fees.
The problem is nobody seems capable of seeing anyone else’s point of view. Whether
its transactional fees versus hourly rates or percentage-based fees versus flat-rate
charges, the debate always seems drowned out by vitriolic and righteous
standpoints.
The challenge for any trade body is to represent all it’s
membership, not just those who hold the same views as the leadership. A consensus
needs to be agreed so the trade body can take that view to the regulator. The
problem with IFAs is that consensus never seems to be achievable. If the IFA
Centre only received 2% membership, then even with an adjustment for apathy, we
must assume 90% of IFAs disagreed with Gill Cardy’s views on things. If I think
a trade body is talking to the regulator about something which I disagree on,
or worse, something which may threaten my business, then I can’t support that
trade body. If I’m passionately independent then I can’t support APFA either,
or indeed anything else that’s out there. So as a small IFA, where does that
leave me?
I admire and respect Gill Cardy for having a go at this –
there was no money in it, it was simply for the sake of trying to do the right
thing. But I feel any attempt at forming a body aimed at representing IFAs is
doomed, sadly, not as a reflection on Ms Cardy, but on all of us. We are all
too entrenched in our opinions to compromise and come together in a single,
coherent and intelligent voice.
