The NTAA has formed a new association within its confines in a bid to provide services to its 7500 accounting and tax agent firms in a time of regulatory uncertainty.
As part of taking back ground from the planning industry, the NTAA Financial Planners' Association said it would protect the interests of its members.
The timing of the new planning association may make more sense to accountants and tax agents, however, it will surely resonate less for many financial planners and their clients.
The emergence of yet another association will surely do more harm than good.
On the surface it does make sense for the accountants and tax agents to feel they are supported. No question there.
However, mention of the formation of a new body to colleagues prompted eye rolling and exclamations of "why do we need another one?"
It's a fair point to make. In an industry where participants seem to do a better job of jostling with each other than uniting and conquering, the formation of yet another 'financial planning association' will surely just add to an existing headache.
Even if we count only the main association players in the financial planning space, it's a relatively long list: the FPA, the Association of Financial Advisers, the Association of Independently Owned Financial Planners and to a smaller extent the Financial Services Council.
From a client perspective, having this many associations surely creates a level of confusion. While the FPA has positioned itself as the industry's peak advice association, it is not alone in offering support to Australia's financial planning fraternity.
While advisers are no doubt taking their own advice and diversifying their memberships across a number of associations, the inclusion of yet another body seems redundant.
Does the industry need this many associations?
Is the inclusion of the NTAA a concern for financial planners or merely a case of horses for courses?
