Yet there are a number of leading practitioner members who are far more blunt and critical of the small-practitioner mentality and life planning orientation in some quarters of the FPA leadership. "When the broker-dealers leave, the corporate members could follow right behind them, and I don't think either of them will be foolish enough to come back," grouses one leading practitioner.

One indication of the small-practitioner mentality of some FPA leaders surfaced earlier this year when several of them stopped releasing the amount of assets their firms had under management. To some, the move reflected widespread dissatisfaction and doubts about the viability of the assets-under-management model that gained popularity in the 1990s, doubts that have deepened in a prolonged bear market. With many practitioners moving towards hourly or retainer fees, assets under management also is a less reliable indicator of a firm's scale. Yet critics suggest the reason some firms don't want to release the figure is because their asset base is insubstantial.

While some members worry that the FPA is too focused on the needs of small practitioners, others think that it should be. "Who do you think represents the vast majority of their membership, people who work in firms with $700 million in assets?" asks one practitioner.

Going forward, there may be other divisive issues, but they are less likely to break down along IAFP and ICFP lines. "From my seat on the board, there are no ICFP or IAFP factions," says Dan Moisand, a relatively new FPA board member from Melbourne, Fla. "Those two organizations went down with the World Trade Center. The folks who were quarantined together in San Diego on September 11 came together as a group and focused on common priorities."

Where any remnants of IAFP-ICFP rivalry still exist may be found at the chapter levels. "At the chapter level we occasionally still get some sense of the IA-IC thing," Moisand says. ""But the problems vary. In some areas, both chapters [of predecessor organizations] were very active and competitive."

As Yeske sees it, the FPA already has moved beyond both predecessor organizations. Part of his goal as president was to narrow the association's goals and agenda and try to do fewer things better.

The growing numbers and strength of the profession is attracting notice in the corridors of power. Four years ago, when then-ICFP president Elissa Buie spoke at an IAFP meeting in support of the merger, she met with then-SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt. She recalls that after she told Levitt her organization had only 14,000 members, his eyes began to drift out the window. Earlier this year, Yeske met with current SEC Chairman William Donaldson. "He seemed really engaged and he seemed to get it," Yeske says.

What about the possibility of a new organization being able to siphon members from the FPA? This was discussed at the time that the merger took place, and one board member asked, "Where are they going to go?"

So far, there haven't been many viable alternatives. At the time of the merger, the life insurance industry's largest association, the National Association of Life Underwriters (NALU), changed its name to the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (NAIFA), created a financial planning division and hired a respected academic, Jerry Mason, as head of financial planning continuing education. Then it made a concerted effort to build the division, some think at the expense of the FPA.

Some NAIFA officials hoped that FPA members who were not CFP licensees would be prime recruits for another association, since the FPA was requiring all practitioner members to earn their CFP licenses by 2010 or move from the practitioner to the general membership with allied professionals and corporate members. The strategy failed, and if there were disgruntled members, NAIFA did not appeal to them.