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 | 06 Feb 2015, 09:56 AM Agree 0
CRM2 implementation lays bare the dollars earned by advisors for providing financial advice. Yet, many fee-based advisors continue to advocate for the elimination of embedded compensation. So, why the big push?
  • Kathy Waite Your Net Worth Manager | 06 Feb 2015, 11:23 AM Agree 0
    Harleys point about "advice" not being regulated. Its not for the want of trying. Financial planning is regulated in Quebec and I have personally had discussions with our provincial FCAA enforcement and lawyers interpreting securities law wording and asking if it could be here but because product sales are already regulated and lack of resource there is no appetite for it. We have 1 million people in our province, no budget for more regulation.
    Harley don't take this personally you are obviously a shining example given your industry service and efforts but unfortunately as in all professions not everyone is as scrupulous as you. I see too many cases of deception by omission of information example 72 year old farmers in DSC mutual funds who have no idea what they have and recently when one complained he was told he was emailed a fund fact sheet when they don't have an email address. Case closed complaint dismissed. Friends and family hear that, an already apathetic public has another excuse not to get organised as they will probably get ripped off.
    End of day , if there is some transparency and choice our professional image might improve. I suspect in a poll we are as popular as realtors and dentists to spend money on. Interested in what Douglas Cumming finds.
  • Ken kivenko | 06 Feb 2015, 11:58 AM Agree 0
    There are dozens of studies that show that commission incentives skew recommendations.As far as GST/HST goes it is broken out clearly on every bill.Crm2 provides most but not all the costs of an investment but knowing costs without knowing the services provided still leads to a information gap.The reason Index funds are not sold is clear- lower trailers even though they outperform actively managed funds over the long term.In any event the real issue is the suitability standard for advice- it's time has past- time to accept a Best interests standard for dealer Reps.
  • Will Ashworth | 06 Feb 2015, 12:42 PM Agree 0
    As always, this subject finds a great deal of interest. I appreciate your comments. Really trying to cover all sides of this argument.
  • Markus Muhs | 06 Feb 2015, 03:41 PM Agree 0
    I think if a client is given the option and prefers commission-based to either fee-based (fee as a percentage of assets) or fee-only (fee for advice/service ie: hourly) then the advisor is possibly not properly disclosing fees to the client.

    There absolutely is "skewed advice" out there due to commission incentives. I'll even admit that when I was with a bank-affiliated firm the name of the game was promoting those products which paid 1.25% trailers (instead of 1%) and to avoid using individual bond funds (0.5% or less) and instead utilize balanced funds (1% or more) in building out a clients' asset allocation.
Post a reply