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 | 22 Mar 2017, 08:15 AM Agree 0
John De Goey hits back at Advocis’ stance on the CSA’s plans to ban embedded commissions
  • Ross B. | 22 Mar 2017, 10:21 AM Agree 0
    While I don't always agree with Mr. De Goey's positions or his views of how things should be done in our industry, he is absolutely correct in his statements regarding the positions Advocis has put forth.
  • Advisor in Waterloo | 22 Mar 2017, 05:24 PM Agree 0
    A few good points that don't hold up to the reality of the industry. Fee for service has enabled financial planners or brokers to charge higher rates across the board if they so desire. The average fee for service is now in excess of 1.25%. Many charge 1.5% which often results in the client paying a higher overall fee even with the cheaper "F" class funds. The advisor went from making 0.5% on bond or income funds to 1.5%. Even equity funds are a better deal with fee for service at the rate brokers and planners are charging. Is that better for the client? As far as the UK, there are upwards of 3/4 of a million clients that can no longer find an advisor to deal with. Interesting that New Zealand, Germany and several other countries looked into banning embedded commissions and decided against it. People need to look at the big picture here which they are not. In the end the average client will be the loser, and there are a lot more "average" clients with $250,000 or less than there are those who will be able to negotiate their fees lower. Ask those in the UK without advisors how it worked out for them!
  • Bruce | 27 Mar 2017, 12:16 PM Agree 0
    Asking Mr. DG to comment on this is like asking a well read Fireman to comment on tuning up a Formula 1 car. people who have no clue about sales, about eating what you kill (which is not a bad term) should never ever be taken seriously when they venture into that arena. Mr. DG is obviously a very good and thourough fund manager, but omnipotent? no.
  • Debbie Hartzman.CFP.CLU.CDFA.TEP.RRC.CEA | 27 Mar 2017, 04:54 PM Agree 0
    Mr de Geoy does not live in the advisor or the client world. Firstly he assumes that clients are stupid and don't know that their advisor is getting paid??? Really, every one of my clients over the last 25 years never assumed I was working for free out of the goodness of my heart. Secondly, I have worked with professionals in both the legal and accounting world, where I have been asked, how big is the account, how much do you think I can bill them. So Mr de Geoy, I ask you, so you not think that this opens up the door for advisors to charge more, at least now there is a cap and standardization. I believe the saying goes, be very careful what you wish for". You are correct about one thing, those of us who adhere to a higher standard and give our clients service will survive under any regime. The little investor trying to get ahead and understand will be left to deal with the banks, and we all know how that works.
  • | 02 Nov 2017, 11:29 AM Agree 0
    you are correct. Fee for Service does not lower the client fees. Many times the embedded fees are cheaper for the client.
  • Advisor in Vernon | 02 Nov 2017, 05:37 PM Agree 0
    Fully agree with your comments, Waterloo. Smaller account holders could find themselves paying a dealer-imposed minimum annual fee, which could result in total costs significantly higher than the current embedded fee mutual funds. Their only alternative is to DIY with an online trading platform (that has led to disastrous results for many), a robot, or a bank product with no advice. Let's hope that we find an intelligent solution.
  • Steve H. | 04 Nov 2017, 01:32 PM Agree 0
    I wish we could be like John. Virtuous, honest, helps little old ladies across the street. A force for good in the world. I suspect, if you peel back a few layers of this onion, you will find an ulterior motive to Mr. de Geoy's supposedly selfless advice.
Post a reply