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 Jul 2016, 09:00 AM Agree 0
The former president of The Investment Funds Institute of Canada says the CSA’s proposal to remove embedded mutual fund commission fees is unnecessary following CRM2 disclosures
  • Steve | 21 Jul 2016, 11:59 AM Agree 0
    Thankyou Joanne, finally someone has the audacity to point out the truth. You have hit the nail on the head. I have fee based and commission based clients, we work to find out which client is best served by which service. Having the choice allows me to better serve my clients, one by one, as opposed to treating them like a herd of cloned sheep.
  • Niki | 21 Jul 2016, 12:00 PM Agree 0
    I wonder how many people work in the Industry as a whole in Canada whose salaries/pay/commissions are paid from the embedded mutual fund trailer fees? This would definitely be an interesting number. I hazard to guess that it is far more than those who have lost their jobs/contracts in the oil industry over the past two years.
  • Bob White, CLU | 21 Jul 2016, 05:42 PM Agree 0
    Joanne De Laurentiis is a common sense lady. Thank you it is nice to see that there are people at the lead who have common sense thinking and not dreaming up schemes that keep them employed and causing excessive additional cost, which get passed along to the consumer and the advisors and dealers and fund companies.

    If I have said it 100 times I will say again, we as advisors must have our voices heard, unless you like being considered a crook by the regulators, being told that you are not worthy to hold out as a professional, as they want us all to hold out as mutual fund sales people.

    As a 40 year member of Advocis, I would say to anyone who is not a member, (not a certificate holder) of a professional organization such as Advocis, CA or law society and others were you pay a fee and follow the protocols of education, a professional code of ethics and practice, become a professional and stand up and say NO to the regulatory bodies wanting to make change that has little to no value to the benefits of our clients.

    Read the reports they have published to realize the lack of information, credibility of that information the lack of proper comparative measures for service and values.

    An example of comparing the sale of a life insurance product years ago in Indian to the sale of mutual funds in Canada today.. that stinks of selling crap to get across a message that has no purpose.

    Regulators gifting funds to advocacy groups, with no disclosure to the advisors who pay those fees!

    The bottom line is there is no reason to ban embedded compensation. But there may be need to modernize how it is disclosed and offered to the consumer.

    And those fee for service advisors are not fee for service in the true sense they charge a planning fee, there are only about 3% of all advisors in Canada who actually charge a fee only advice, Most are like me, embedded compensation of 1% to the dealer, if house hold assets are below $150,000, and for assets over $150,000 then 1% to the dealer as a fee for service.

    Guess what, same, just how the compensation is paid, and it is not commission, because every advisor can have a different grid based on productivity with the dealer, not with the fund company.

    Now that said there are dealers who say if you sell our proprietary product we will pay you more. I say the regulators should go after them, because now my clients returns are being reduce because I do not do business that way, and effectively this increases costs and reduce returns to all clients.

    As advisors we all need to ask the questions ;
    -why are you making the changes?
    -what advisors have you consulted?
    -what professions have you consulted?
    -what experience in the field working with -clients does the regulator's who are promoting these ides have?
    -how do you plan to fix the mess after it you determine it was a stupid move?
    _ how do you explain to the Finance minister of each province that you have just impacted a significant portion of small business in this country and there or significant job losses?
    -how do you explain to the Canadian mom's and dad's that they no longer can afford to get advise because advisors can not long cover the costs to service them.

    The regulators do not care what happens to mom and dad Canadian and the next generation. All they care about is a crazy idea dreamt up by the legal begeal's and guess what, those legal begal's get pretty decent salaries, and there are hundreds of them, and they get benefits. bitt of a comfloct, let's make changes just to make changes and we keep our jobs.

    Go to your political reps and ask what they know about this and why they are not doing something about it. The regulators are wagging the government dog, and it is about time that government represent the people, and small business, which we are both.

    Tell your MP's and LMA's how many people you employ, the staff, the office cleaner, the landlord, his staff, the folk who wash the office windows, who shovel the snow off the parking lots, the dry cleaner, etc. we impact may lives doing what we do, so do not be shamed into having to call your self a Mutual Fund Sales person, unless that is all you do in a bank.

    My name is Bob White, CLU. I am a member of Advocis Canada since 1977, I joined because I wanted be a professional and help people, follow a code of ethics and conduct, and I am very tired of those who real understand very little about who and how we do our jobs serving Canadian's.

    Again thank you Joanne De Laurentiis, for getting it right!


  • Niki | 22 Jul 2016, 11:00 AM Agree 0
    At the end of the day Bob, it appears they are not interested in hearing from any of us in the Industry. The MLAs and MPs in power do not understand the Industry. I believe there will be a train wreck. And you are right, there will be many people without an FA to consult. There will be many FAs out of work. More people than ever before will be negatively affected and the regulators will say that they were just doing their jobs. OK, where have we heard that excuse before?
Post a reply