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 | 02 Jun 2015, 09:15 AM Agree 0
An advisor has been banned for his “egregious” treatment of elderly clients – with a massive fine also meant to “repudiate” his actions.
  • Ken MacCoy, CHS | 02 Jun 2015, 01:57 PM Agree 0
    As an MFDA registered advisor, what disgusts you more ....

    (1) what Popovich actually did; or

    (2) that Popovich was able to delay MFDA proceedings for more than 2 years - See: http://www.mfda.ca/enforcement/cases12/201240.html; or

    (3) the MFDA admitting the odds of the SRO collecting on any of the fine and/or costs is remote at best; or

    (4) WHY regulators are more concerned with how advisors are paid as opposed to fixing the above problems ?!

    As an insurance advisor, I pick: Option # 5: ALL of the above!
  • Peter | 02 Jun 2015, 08:10 PM Agree 0
    I assume that once again the advisor acted without the knowledge of the Branch Manager or the Dealer?
  • Ken MacCoy, CHS | 04 Jun 2015, 11:32 AM Agree 0
    The Branch Manager &/or Dealer is responsible to review, approve & sign off on all trades.

    One should never: 'ass/u/me'.









  • Debbie | 04 Jun 2015, 07:54 PM Agree 0
    Stating in your written decision that it is less likely a fine is paid when permanent prohibition is given is like handing him and his legal counsel a "debt paid in full" stamp. According to the documents he did all of this while under "close supervision". Sounds more like what supervision to me.
Post a reply