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 | 25 Jun 2015, 09:05 AM Agree 0
It doesn’t matter if you’re an advisor or product manufacturer, those most affected by fees continue to have a lot to say – good and bad – about the regulators’ examination of fees.
  • Rick Hewat | 25 Jun 2015, 10:01 AM Agree 0
    Fees, fees, fees. Funny how it all is based upon mutual funds and the like but no mention of GIC or Term Deposits. Why is there no necessity of reporting how much financial institutions make on GIC's? Give investors 1 to 2% and loan it out at 5 or 6% or more!! Also, compensation to branches added in. Some institutions get a free ride and make out like bandits on deposit based fixed income investments. Let's look at all investment types, not just some!!
  • Susan McArter CFP | 25 Jun 2015, 11:42 AM Agree 0
    I totally agree with the comments stated above. Clients should always have the choice. Any changes legislated should not restrict client options. What needs to happen in my opinion is we need a standard a level of excellence set. The FPSC who oversees all certified financial planner's with a CFP. designation has already set this standard for me and all of my fellow colleagues with the CFP designation. In my practice I have maintained relationships with all of my clients the same not just the ones with large portfolio's who can afford to or want to pay a fee for my services. In my opinion the regulators are focusing on one part of the picture in this debate. Education, disclosure, consistent meetings, goal setting, tax planning, risk management, estate planning, education planning, legacy planning are offered and provided to all of my clients. These services add immeasurable value to anyone and everyone who is in need. Removing trailers would force me to increase my fees the resulting in a large number of clients missing out.
  • Bob White,CLU | 25 Jun 2015, 12:41 PM Agree 0
    It is all about clarity of cost, and value of advice and results for the cost.

    Call it commissions or call it fees, same results if both are 1%. But when I hear on BNN a CEO of a planning/investment firm say that what it means is that clients with account less than 1,000,000 will pay a 2% fee, and clients over 1,000,000 will only pay 1 1/2% fee, it leads me to say "really". Be it 1% FE0 or 1% fee for service that I do for my clients, that is a look different cost, and I give huge value to my clients.

    So is it detrimental to have "hidden compensation" vs fee? In a short while all will be disclosed. Then lets wage the discussion of why clients are leaving advisors, probably because they do not see value for what they are paying for.

    On the point of capping trailer fees, yes, but they cap fee for service fees. They are all the same, they are the compensation being paid for service, just 2 different ways. If CRM2 says it is fully disclosed what the client pays, it is a no brainer, clients with gravitate to value for the fee.

    Could it be that the fear is the fact that in the "hidden" compensation model the relationship with clients is stronger an the fee for service does not support the value?

    Have full disclosure regardless of the method of compensation, and let the consumer decide. What I see is a system that keeps trying to change, what needs not to be changed, so that the regulators making the changes keep the jobs that they get paid very well for, and who have most likely never sat down and worked with clients they way advisors do. Often those who are book smart, are not so intelligent in real life smarts.

    Let's see the studies, the communications with the average mom and dad consumers, what concerns them what they need to help them in their financial planning, how they truly feel about how they pay for the services they get and the value they attach to the cost of service.

    From my involvement, I have not seen the studies done by regulators, or government, but regulators have alluded to doing studies, what is the fear of publishing them?

    When will government have the balls to stand up to the regulators and say, " hang on a second, these are our citizens you are messing with, prove this is better for them, and we will decide"

    My name is Bob White, CLU.

    I do both commission base and fee based with my clients and I am DAMN proud of the work I do.
    Stop the crap and let's do our job looking after Canadian Families.
  • Barb Amsden | 26 Jun 2015, 11:26 AM Agree 0
    Totally agree with Bob White -
  • Ken MacCoy, CHS | 26 Jun 2015, 02:54 PM Agree 0
    RIGHT ON Bob ! I agree with one exception.

    Don't depend on the government ... most of our elected officials are more concerned with getting re-elected than doing what is right for Canadians.

    The Good News: If the regulators actual read the Brondesbury Report they will read that client satisfaction results from (the greater majority of) advisors providing top-notch advice & service. How advisors are paid is relatively immaterial as long as the client is happy with performance & understands how advisors are paid & what they’re paying for that advice.

    Bottomline: The clients should have the choice to choose.
Post a reply