If you do not understand that the Chartered Insurance Institute and the Personal Finance Society have been having serious relationship issues, you must have been hiding in a cave.
There is no shortage of 'he said, she said' comments.
But to find the truth you need to follow the money. Thanks in part to those meerkats, the CII is operating in a decreasing general insurance market. It has a huge establishment and an expensive pension scheme fund that comes with it.
The CII sold its Aldermanbury headquarters in 2017 - estimated at the time to be worth £19mn - and now realises the only part of the business that is viable is the PFS, which it sees as a subsidiary.
PFS members may dream of separating from the CII with their money intact but I suspect that train left the station years ago.
The CII suggests that PFS governance has been improper, but seemingly refuses to say what that means.
So, we face yet another round of the CII’s inward facing civil war while the sectors it claims to service continue to face a disorganised future with seemingly little effort being made to countermand the regulators’ continually rising demands.
So, what to do?
We need to look at the practical issues.
There has to be a source both for examinations and for statements of professional standing.
Just because these are required by the regulator does not mean that the Chartered Institute for Securities & Investment cannot provide these, and I doubt the regulator will much care who provides it.
We need to get away from the warring factions and onto looking at what the professional advice sector actually needs.
From the perspective of my helicopter, it is clear that the small firms which represent nearly all the advice sector need to be in control of their own destiny.
To do so they need a body that acts as a real professional body - it needs to be a combined setter of standards, an examiner, a regulator and a representative body.
The Financial Conduct Authority often complains it does not know how to regulate advisers. It is time we stopped the internecine wars and showed them.
There are many benefits to this. The one-size-fits-all approach is no good for consumers or advisers.
Regulation should be designed for the sector you are regulating, not as we see too often a theoretical sector you would like to regulate.
The political pressure that larger firms can muster is simply not available to smaller firms. So, you see banks getting away with scandals while smaller firms are blamed in their stead.
Part of the advisers’ failure to create pressure is their unwillingness to fund the effort and freeload on those who do.
