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 | 17 Aug 2015, 09:56 AM Agree 0
An ill-advised move by an advisor reminds regulators that no amount of supervisory oversight can regulate ‘stupid’
  • Tony Romano | 17 Aug 2015, 10:59 AM Agree 0
    "The advisor didn’t benefit financially from the misconduct agreed upon, which begs the question why the dealer isn’t also responsible for these actions given the pressure the BMO manager is said to applied in this instance."

    Good question? So why ISN'T BMO also on the hook here? It appears that Goliath got away with the punishment, while David got stomped on by the regulators.
  • B. W. Leitch | 17 Aug 2015, 11:10 AM Agree 0
    As is the case in most disciplinary actions, the individual advisor is most often the party who pays the highest prices as they are the most vulnerable to the regulatory bodies. These regulatory bodies do not seem to have the power or the willingness to confront the corporations who direct and control the advisors.
  • Barb Amsden | 17 Aug 2015, 11:45 AM Agree 0
    In most other industries, the person that went the extra mile for a client without hurting anyone would be rewarded. Clearly signing something for someone else is wrong, but would/did the client want this done? I will have to read the details.
  • Susan McArter CFP | 17 Aug 2015, 11:59 AM Agree 0
    Come on, I worked for a big bank in another life,from the facts as stated in this article it is clear to me this advisor did what he did for fear of screwing up the transfer of this "important" HNW client for BMO. He knew if the TSF did not go smoothly he would feel the effects of this through reduced commission / incentive bonus! BMO should be accountable.
  • Tony Romano | 17 Aug 2015, 02:50 PM Agree 0
    I agree with the comments so far. It's like the institution is hiding behind the advisor. Yes, the advisor was wrong and there is plenty of precedent to show that fear of your employer isn't a viable reason for personal misconduct, though I personally believe that if someone has bills to pay and doesn't want to lose their job, it should be considered. I just say that these "institutions" need to own up for the actions of the people they put in charge. You hired that manager BMO, you wanted that business BMO, then BMO should responsibility as the employer. I know it won't happen as these banks are filled with upper management filled with cowards that let little people pay for their misdeeds.
  • Michael Low | 18 Aug 2015, 11:53 AM Agree 0
    There is no excuse for falsifying signatures or documents under any circumstances period. The company, BMO, in this case may have applied pressure but from what I can see they didn't force the advisor to do what he did. I do not agree that the firm should be fined in this instance based on the information available.
  • Tony Romano | 18 Aug 2015, 06:37 PM Agree 0
    As I mentioned Michael, I'm not saying that the advisor should not be fined! The "pressure" that you mentioned should be enough to let BMO also suffer the consequences of applying undue pressure on a subordinate. Once again, David gets punished, while goliath walks away free.
  • Ken | 22 Aug 2015, 02:47 PM Agree 0
    Dealers mus be held accountable for the actions of those to put into the marketplace as advisors.Also, why aren't dealers always required to disgorge the ill gotten commissions they received via the abusive actions of their advisors?
  • Roby | 22 Aug 2015, 09:53 PM Agree 0
    It always comes down to money.
Post a reply