Wealth Professional forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Wealth Professional | 27 Feb 2015, 10:52 AM Agree 0
Yesterday’s WP article questioning the findings of the CCPAs mutual fund report left many front-line advisors extremely frustrated and none too pleased. Fees, it seems, are only one part of the service equation.
  • Doug | 27 Feb 2015, 12:37 PM Agree 0
    Following the fee vs imbedded saga and from what reps and head offices are using to promote the move is that moving to a fee platform will increase head office's and a reps income. Am I missing something but who is paying for that increased income? And that benefits who?
  • Tim Affolter | 27 Feb 2015, 01:44 PM Agree 0
    You stopped short of my final comments, Will, which indicated that many financial advisors deliver much more than what an Investment Advisor delivers. I do believe that the cost of using an Investment Advisor will diverge (and probably be squeezed lower) by CRM2. However, the value delivered by a Financial Planner, for an extra cost, of course, will be much more evident as those costs and services become transparent.
  • Will Ashworth | 27 Feb 2015, 02:14 PM Agree 0
    Hey Tim,

    I was constrained by space. But you're so right.

    Transparency trumps everything else.
  • Harley Lockhart CLU CHFC | 27 Feb 2015, 02:42 PM Agree 0
    Please correct me if I'm wrong:
    1. Mutual fund fees are damaging to client portfolios.
    2. Mutual funds are the most common investment of the mass market.
    3. Actual results (CIRANO) show that investors with advisors (who I assume use mutual funds) accumulate significantly higher assets than those without advisors.
    4. Where is the damage suffered by clients from those high fees?
    5. Is this another case of focus on the number rather than the benefit to the client?
    Maybe they should be celebrating the fees they pay. What other proof of value is needed?
Post a reply