MFDA decision presents a vexing problem

MFDA decision presents a vexing problem

6 Comments
  • Ken MacCoy, CHS 2015-03-03 1:11:13 PM
    So, the MFDA 'put the boots to Adeola' fining the respondent $250,000 & assessing costs of $10,000. What an inane statement! The fine could have been double & had the same affect... zippa, notta, zero in MFDA's coffer. - FYI: Large fines are NO deterrent for people who 'take the money and run' from the industry. If the MFDA is serious about their mandate, they need to get ALL provinces to follow Alberta's lead so they have a bigger bite as an SRO.
    Post a reply
  • Bob T 2015-03-03 1:25:03 PM
    A large fine that cannot be collected does nothing to deter conduct. A person conducting himself inappropriately knows that if he is not caught he continues to benefit from his acts but if he is caught he loses his license and never faces any monetary consequences.

    Alberta sets an example but even in Alberta the collections against individuals are likely to be small. Fines need to be levied against both the advisor and the firm and collected.
    Post a reply
  • Will Ashworth 2015-03-04 11:43:26 AM
    That's an excellent point, Bob. The fines need to be big and they need to levied against the firms, and not just the advisors, as well.
    Post a reply