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 | 21 Sep 2015, 08:15 AM Agree 0
An advisor gone rogue and a quick-thinking compliance team are making the case for keeping regulations as is-- even if they failed to protect clients from a $90K loss
  • John Kehoe CFP FMA CIWM | 21 Sep 2015, 02:19 PM Agree 0
    Hi Will. I receive the WP e-letter and appreciate the information it provides -- especially on subjects related to advisor behaviour and industry regulation. However, this article, ostensibly about a case of advisor misconduct, includes a very subjective claim about the need for regulation:

    "...The fact compliance was able to figure out the advisor wasn’t being honest to clients demonstrates why compliance regulations are fine just the way they are."

    Beyond the difficulty of judging the state of the industry's regulatory framework based on a single event, I am concerned about the article's conflation of fact and opinion.

    I suggest that the story would be better served by an objective, journalistic approach, rather than that of an editorial. My understanding is that it's generally best not to comingle the two - even if the latter accounts for only a small portion of the content relative to the former.

    A fact-based report of the story could be followed by a separate, opinion-based commentary about the relevant issues.

    I say this because these articles and WP are important resources and are, therefore, elements of the industry itself. I think it's important that the industry represent itself in as clear and objective a manner as possible, and that participants' opinions be identified as such so that readers of articles and consumers of advice have a clear understanding of these matters.

  • Ken MacCoy, CHS | 21 Sep 2015, 02:53 PM Agree 0
    Hurrah for the MFDA!

    Great News! The clients got their money back and another rogue advisor is banned for life.

    My 'usual' question: Will the MFDA actually collect the penalty ($10,000 fine & $2,500 costs) from Hufanda? - Sorry to sound pessimistic, but I wouldn't bet on it!
  • Will Ashworth | 21 Sep 2015, 04:53 PM Agree 0
    John, I appreciate your comments and to a certain extent I agree with your viewpoint.
    However, I think you'll agree that the advisor community as a whole is fed up with the amount of regulatory BS that exists.
    I was simply trying to recognize why compliance did their job in this instance.
    Keep the great comments coming.
Post a reply