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 | 12 Jan 2016, 08:15 AM Agree 0
One of the biggest worries for Canadian securities regulators when it comes to eliminating commissions is the ‘gap’ in advice that’s occurred in other jurisdictions where they’ve done so
  • John De Goey | 12 Jan 2016, 11:04 AM Agree 0
    Please ask Mr. Bishop to explain how eliminating one form of payment makes the absolute quantum of payment inevitably go up.

    If an advisor is making a living earning 1%, how does s/he not earn a similar (identical) living by giving the client a bill for that amount? If s/he (inevitably?) bills more, please explain why.
  • Robert Roby | 12 Jan 2016, 11:05 AM Agree 0
    Mr. Kivenko moving to a brokerage account to save commissions is typical of the mentality of the powers that be. They fail to understand the value of utilizing a professional, which has proven, that after fees, investors with professional advisors have substantially more assets than those who don't. The focus on fees is very prejudicial to advisors and to investors who fail to see any value. Its been proven in Britain and Australia. I would like to see how Mr. Kivenko's portfolio returns compares to ours. In addition, if Mr. Kivenko feels he can keep the emotion out of his decision making he is indeed a marvel.Its this kind of mentality which is hurting the general investing public rather than helping them.
    By the way, I'm on my way to see my mechanic to do a root canal. He is only charging me a quarter of that which my dentist wants. Cheers
  • Niki | 12 Jan 2016, 11:35 AM Agree 0
    Sarcastically speaking--so the poor or those entering the market can use the machines for advice whereas those with the wherewithal get humans.

    At a time when the top echelon of advisors are themselves reaching retirement, the new ones cannot start.

    So when it comes to truth--it is not really about commissions, but more like oppression and repression. Must make Karl Marx happier that his thesis might prove true after all.
  • Jim Brindle | 12 Jan 2016, 12:58 PM Agree 0
    I still .after 45 years in the business enjoy a great deal of satisfaction and Pride pointing out to a client That when working with me
    Yes a great number have referred to this
    Upon settlement of claim and various other benefits/
  • Ravi Syal | 12 Jan 2016, 01:19 PM Agree 0
    I am working in the industry for over 30 yr's.if we did not have back end load mutual funds we would be able to survive.How new advisors wil survive in fee for service environment.big question mark?
  • Andrew | 12 Jan 2016, 02:15 PM Agree 0
    How can a new advisor, building a book of business live on a 1% trailer? If you are established and serving the entitled 1% wealthy, no problem!
  • Allan Johnson | 12 Jan 2016, 07:09 PM Agree 0
    A 1% trailer or 1% fee on a $50,000 account is only $500 for the year. Most everyone has to split this with their dealer. We must send 4 quarterly statements per year. We provide everyone 24/7 web access to their accounts. We provide everyone with a monthly newsletter. We have a staff of 5. Nobody asked us what the costs are to provide the levels of service we offer. Nobody asked us what we need to earn to be profitable. If the focus is only on making money like they seem to suggest, them the prudent thing to do will be to fire 60% of my clients. I do not want to do this, as many of my friends and their families just don't have a minimum of $250,000 to invest. Who is supposed to help provide these folks with advice?
  • Murray Schultz | 13 Jan 2016, 09:14 AM Agree 0
    Let's be honest: Financial advisors are being used, and fairly heavily, by their employers. Yet, it seems that employers and mutual fund companies want to reallocate monies paid to advisors under established commission structures to their own overhead costs. While this may have to do with increase compliance costs, it also saves a significant amount of money re: keeping track of commissions and convoluted incentive packages (which seem to have been devised by the same guy who wrote the map of the Tokyo subway). While fee for service may work well for well established advisors and their wealthy clients, its a slippery slope for younger advisors and their developing books; which, by definition, require more flexibility. Surely the powers that be are picking their statistics very carefully when they argue that advisors cannot be trusted to recommend the right account type, investments and level of service for each client. The reality is that many advisors would love to have books populated with only sophisticated, high net worth individuals but both this does not happen by mistake or by decree. Both they and their clients require a path to that destination.
  • Wealth Advisor | 13 Jan 2016, 09:29 AM Agree 0
    Great article Will!

    Faced with the harsh economic reality of much higher fee structures and the possible banning of all other commission models by Canadian securities regulators, investors will likewise, vote with their feet.

    When Canada's prominent investor advocate gives a thumbs down to fees, then our regulators should pay attention.

    When clients leave because today's fees are higher than yesterday's commissions, advisors should also pay attention.

    Fee structures can be very cost effective for HNW clients in some or perhaps most situations but for the bottom 80%, the traditional commission structure ( now open, transparent and disclosed) is the far better alternative.

    In this, the interests of investor advocates and advisors are aligned. A rare event indeed!

    Attention all Canadian securities regulators: -let's keep our existing fee structures and let's keep our commission structures with some possible reforms regarding "outliers" paying excessive compensation for a very small number of investment funds. DSC? They have been dying a death of neglect for years but chargebacks would address most if not all of the concerns with DSC funds.
Post a reply