Is a specific protection trade body the best result advisers can aim for? Richard Verdin introduces a different option.
So, who is it or what is that might achieve that? As in any industry segment, in protection there are the outspoken few who, from time to time, appear to act as mouthpiece for the industry.
These few are necessary to develop momentum, but for any association to get off the ground it has to deliver to some pretty fundamental needs. To be representative for example, for which you need consensus, it will also need to develop the resources necessary for organisation.
Entrepreneurs and business people often initiate such bodies, but few have the time, the inclination, appetite or other characteristics necessary to run them over any meaningful period.
Gaining consensus, carrying a majority, developing collaborative initiatives is not only a full-time job, but it would test the patience of a saint. The job demands an entirely unique mix of personality type and agility.
Now there is a lot of talk in the market on the subject: some acting, some researching. What is evident is that the voices we hear are not yet clear on all the issues. They are not yet coherent and do not yet carry a mandate from the masses of market participants.
All associations are not the same, of course, and they certainly are not when it comes to intermediaries. You just need to take a look at their websites to get an idea of the scale of their interests, representation and resources.
An array of good intentions
Looking around, it is clear that all of the current associations have good intentions, have achieved notable successes and are valued by their subscription-paying members. But given the array, it can not be the case that they all hold the same importance for external stakeholders. By this token, they cannot have the same access or influence.
Each inevitably carries a different weight. Some are more specialised than others, being either mono-product line or focused specifically on advice-related issues. It appears, on reflection, to be a world of intermediary associations that has grown up on the back of specialist interests, issues and initiatives, rather than planned in any market-wide strategic way. And this is something of which protection intermediaries should perhaps take note before they decide what they want.
As an outsider (although with more than half of my career spent as an intermediary) it does appear that resources may not have been pooled effectively for maximum impact.
One could hazard a guess that, through fragmentation, each association must be less individually than the sum of the parts if they were combined and somehow banded together.
It is a similar situation to the one in the film The Life of Brian when Brian is confronted about which group he should join to take on the Romans, the ‘People’s Front of Judea’ or the ‘Judean People’s Front’ (who, of course, hate each other).
Nobody is saying for one minute that AMI, AMII, ATII, APFA of BIBA hate each other. They are sure to have great relationships, are full of mutual respect and probably collaborate, or at least communicate on lots of important matters. But to ‘outsiders’ it comes across as sub-optimal in terms of influence and resources.
