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 | 20 Nov 2015, 09:43 AM Agree 0
The case for removing three of the most recognizable regulating bodies isn’t as outlandish as it might first sound
  • Mark Matsumoto | 20 Nov 2015, 12:06 PM Agree 0
    I think that all of these regulators recognize that there needs to be fewer of them, but none of them wants to give up their job or admit that they are the redundant one. It's not about the consumer, but about the title, income and job security for the regulators. No one will say that but it looks that way.

    I would not be opposed to consolidating all of the regulators into one body and letting them all keep their jobs. It would probably be easier and less expensive for the firms, advisors and consumers to just have one body instead of "lots" like now. Life is easier if you have fewer "bosses".
  • Doug Warkentin | 20 Nov 2015, 03:18 PM Agree 0
    I agree with Mark. Seems like job preservation to me. In the U.S., you have the SEC. In Canada, we have securities commissions in each province where most use the passport system anyways, IIROC and the MFDA. It's time to "trim the fat" and have a National body that overseas the country. Self preservation. No one wants to admit it because they'd be out of a job
  • Niki | 30 Nov 2015, 05:29 PM Agree 0
    I have always found it rather off that there could be a license to sell managed money when in fact the individuals selling the managed money are not licensed to sell the inside goods. It's like selling whisky filled chocolates while calling them food instead of booze.
  • Bob White, CLU | 13 Dec 2015, 06:10 PM Agree 0
    Marks points are the same as my views.

    There needs to be one national regulator, it reduces cost, it standardizes how advisor practice which is better for consumer decisions for comparative advisor service levels and standards.

    The regulators are spending client dollars, so if we can minimize the cost of regulators the clients will make more money.

    One of our advocates was just at the Symposium and hear a story that that a regulating body was making charitable donations. Talk about conflict or interest and lack of disclosure to how consumer fees are being allocated.

    We need less bodies regulating and more accountability from those organization as to how fees are being spent.

    We have to disclose MER's, the regulators get paid from those fees, so why do that not disclose what part of the MER goes to them, and how they spend the money?

    I would very much like to see disclosure of the MFDA fees.


    Bob White, CLU
    Member of Advocis since 1977
  • Mike Gentile | 15 Dec 2015, 05:29 PM Agree 0
    Needless to say the various regulatory bodies are loath to give up what they already have. They have become very territorial and very parochial.Redundancy is expensive and the sooner they acknowledge this issue the better off the consumer will be. P.S. Don't hold your breath for this to be resolved any time soon.
Post a reply