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 | 15 Apr 2015, 08:29 AM Agree 0
The shoe is now on the other foot, with fee-based advisors taking heat for failing to disclose all the MERs associated with ETFs – costs that sometimes approach those of mutual funds.
  • Chris Nicola | 15 Apr 2015, 11:32 AM Agree 0
    I may be missing something but where is the reference to the actual statement made in this article. Which fee-based advisors are failing to disclose this? I have no doubt there is some truth to this, but as written it just seems to be an open accusation without any evidence.
  • Ken MacCoy, CHS | 15 Apr 2015, 12:55 PM Agree 0
    ...and there you have it! John hits the nail on the head & well written article by Jordan.

    Clients know there is no such thing as a 'free-ride'. They know they pay for the advice one way or another. However, this debate about how the advisor gets paid is not important.

    The real issue should be about protecting the consumer through higher professional standards as recommended by ADVOCIS.

    The problem: anyone... whether actually qualified or not... can call themselves a financial advisor and give what they purport to be "good financial advice."

    To start, the title "financial advisor" needs to be strictly regulated to protect consumers.

    All 'advisors' need to meet initial & ongoing proficiency standards; satisfy strict continuing education requirements; adhere to a professional & ethical code of conduct; and
    maintain appropriate levels of E&O insurance; ...PLUS belong to a recognized professional association.

    How advisors get paid is not the problem. The real problem is ensuring that the consumer is protected from the 'bad apples' (unqualified & crooks) in our industry.

    The professional model proposed by Advocis may not be the best solution, but it is a darn good start.

    FYI - I am not a financial advisor, I am an independent life insurance broker; and proud of it.
  • larry elford | 15 Apr 2015, 03:19 PM Agree 0
    Word-play warning: "Adviser" spelled using "er" is a lawful part os the Securities Act and carries a "do-no-harm" type of legal obligation to the client. Most Portfolio Managers fall into this license category and I know Mr. DeGoey is a the leader in his field of separation (and respect) of client interests, vs dealer/salesperson interests. "Advisor", spelled using "or" on the other hand is a mere spelling variation to some, but CSA lead legal counsel tells it truthfully: It is a "mere title" and one that is not of interest to the regulators. In this regard I concur with what John Degoey says, "regulators have dropped the ball". So badly have they demonstrated blind obedience to those they purport to regulate, that Canadians are cheated of about $500 million PER WEEK (U of Toronto mutual fund vs pension funds) by the spelling trickery. Deception "rules", and rules definitely do NOT, with our current regulators. Buyer to beware….. Industry reputation to decline……
  • Wealth Advisor | 17 Apr 2015, 02:46 PM Agree 0
    Just a general comment here. Everyone knows of course, that ETFs are mutual funds?
    That mutual funds have fund expenses attached to them?
    That stocks have MER=0?.

    There is no Fund Facts disclosure document for ETFs just yet but I suspect they will be available when Dealing Representatives (MFDA) start selling them...
Post a reply