Forum

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 | 18 Dec 2013, 12:00 AM Agree 0
CSA sits on the fence about new regulations, deciding to continue its consultations instead.
  • Harley Lockhart, CFP, CLU, CH.F.C. | 18 Dec 2013, 02:02 PM Agree 0
    To avoid any misunderstanding, Advocis, as stated in its Code of Conduct, requires members to place the client's best interest ahead of their own. We therefore reject the notion that a "legislated" fiduciary standard is needed or even appropriate in Canada. A leading Toronto law firm, in studying the issue of client protection from self-serving advisors, concluded that Canadians are better protected under the Common Law practices already in place than are investors in UK and Australia who have recently legislated fiduciary standards. Introducing such legislation in Canada would only serve to restrict the abilities of good advisors to provide custom advice specific to their clients' needs.
    Chair, Advocis Board of Directors
  • Rob Bauml | 18 Dec 2013, 02:27 PM Agree 0
    It seems odd to me that it states above: On the flip side...commissions should be banned and advisors should be held more accountable on proficiency requirements and the use of titles. I am not sure what the use of a title has to do with banning commissions. If I am proficient, educated, hold myself out properly and keep my clients interests first at all times, what difference does it make how the client and I decide to compensate me for my work?

    I believe that the problems that the regulators perceive in our industry are secondary to this problem: Canadians are either unwilling or unable to make quality financial decisions. I see this in client meetings every day. They need advice now more than ever. Financial Advisors are here to help those Canadians and we need to make the industry stronger to help them. Unnecessary regulations will not help Canadians in the long run.
Post a reply