ASMA director Simon Makeham – who is also the principal of SMSF specialist firm Cachewise – yesterday made public comments about the appropriate lobbying role for the newly-branded SMSF Association.
“ASMA is the only voice for trustee members in SMSFs with a growing membership base in Australia. The newly-formed SMSFA does not represent the entire SMSF industry,” Mr Makeham said.
“It can’t because it doesn’t have a category of membership available to trustee members of SMSFs.”
Speculating as to why the association formerly known as SPAA would “drop the word ‘professional’ [from] its moniker’, the SMSF trustee and adviser questioned a potential broadening of SMSFA’s membership, as suggested by some SPAA members in recent days.
Mr Makeham said broadening SPAA’s remit to include trustee members would not be appropriate.
“If this is indeed the case, this would present a conflict of interest to have the one organisation speaking for both the professionals and the actual trustees,” he said.
Calling on SMSFA to offer a “full clarification” on the reasoning behind the name change, Mr Makeham asked whether the move is merely a “marketing ploy” or whether it should be seen as a more significant strategic move.
He said ASMA’s 5,000 trustee members should be assured that “ASMA remains the ‘go-to’ member association in Australia”.
Asked whether SMSFA would be broadening to include trustee members, chief executive Andrea Slattery responded: “We do not have trustee members”, but added that the association has always played a role in providing services to trustees.
At the same time, Ms Slattery also made clear the move should not be read as a change in strategic direction or scope.
“There is no mischief in this, it’s just an evolution and a way in which people can actually intuitively find specialists and intuitively find an association to represent them,” she told SMSF Adviser on Wednesday.
A full Q&A interview with Ms Slattery regarding the recent name change can be accessed here: https://www.smsfadviser.com/strategy/14261-setting-the-record-straight
Oh dear me…can you see where this debate is going? A couple of industry bodies having a scuffle over who does what, and what each should be called. I am sure that each body does a great job at serving their respective member’s interests.
The problem I see is that by fighting among ourselves and airing our grievances in a public forum like this august publication, we do nothing but remind the public that we are fragmented and disfunctional. Surely commonsense and maturity should prevail and if one organisation has a problem with another, the conversation should be taken offline and resolved in a mature and adult-like manner.
I am sure that Mr Whiteley and co are having a quiet chuckle as they watch us fragment in a very public way.
United we stand…divided we fall.
ASMA are seriously kidding themselves here. SISFA have been representing trustees and advisers for many years, and have a long history of real success with submissions and real input to Government and regulators. As has SPAA representing professionals (though not as long). That is where the real outcomes happen and where real relationships with Gov’t & regulator have been created – not in hyped up media release headlines that make no difference in real outcomes (“SMSFs under attack” – gee, how many times have we seen that rubbish from those needing a media release).
Look, I have no dramas with ASMA – good luck to them – but to insist they are the ‘go to’ association for trustee outcomes is, to put it mildly, a bit of a stretch.
As someone attending the SPAA conference next week, I really hope they stick to the itinerary and don’t now spend hours defending the change and taking Q&A from the audience on this name-change. I paid a large sum of money to attend for educational reasons, not public relations discussions.