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 | 31 Aug 2015, 11:44 AM Agree 0
The SRO hearing panel had no choice but to permanently ban a former Investors Group advisor who recommended leveraged investments for at least 10 clients without the approval of his employer making this one of the most ‘egregious’ cases the MFDA has ever heard.
  • Brad Jardine | 31 Aug 2015, 12:38 PM Agree 0
    Some firms STILL use leverage on an excessive basis vs traditional financial planning logic. i.e. pay down high interest debt, judicious use of RRSP, RESP's, TFSA's etc. 30 years in the industry... still see it all the time...shame
  • Chris Chakmakian | 31 Aug 2015, 04:07 PM Agree 0
    I support the decision fully.
    It Is guys like this that give the industry a bruised reputation, damages our image and more dramatically financially hurts clients, who place their trust in crooks like these, who betray them and hurt innocent individuals.
  • Ken | 31 Aug 2015, 04:14 PM Agree 0
    This case begs the question- how did such a person get through all the interview screens, probation period , supervision and compliance checks to cause so much harm? And throwing the book means nothing as the Panel itself admits collection of the fine is highly unlikely.This sends a message to others that even the worst behaviour won't cost you a dime. Deterrence value= ZERO and that is why these financial assaults continue.
  • Peter | 01 Sep 2015, 08:49 AM Agree 0
    Obviously this was a rogue advisor. But my BIG QUESTION is where was management at IG for 5 years between 2006 and 2011? Obviously they looked the other way as this advisor probably submitted some significant volumes of business.
    Why is IG or any of its management not being fined???
  • Ken MacCoy, CHS | 01 Sep 2015, 11:00 AM Agree 0
    The MFDA hearing panel could have tripled the fine and had the same probability of collecting it. NONE! There are examples of this crap in the news almost weekly. These unethical, dishonest, scheming 'crooked advisors' are giving the honest, ethical and professional advisors and industry a bad name. Meanwhile, instead of trying to rectify this ever growing problem ...the regulators are more concerned about 'embedded commissions'. What a joke! The problem is's not funny! - Just another reason why I'm an independent life insurance broker.
  • Brad Jardine | 01 Sep 2015, 11:43 AM Agree 0
    Follow the money...mandate dealers to a flat fee model and compliance will become meaningful.
  • Will Ashworth | 01 Sep 2015, 11:48 AM Agree 0
    Peter, apparently this advisor was a real slippery fish. The MFDA in their Reasons and Decisions called him "ungovernable." IG apparently tried on many occasions to get Frank to fly right with no success.
  • Darin | 01 Sep 2015, 12:05 PM Agree 0
    The 'thief' was using monies the clients acquired via other institutions (banks and/or mtg providers through a Home Equity LoC in most cases) at his suggestion. He would then use the funds to invest into the clients IG accounts. IG mgmnt would not have known where the funds originated.
  • Peter | 01 Sep 2015, 12:15 PM Agree 0
    KEN ... I am also an independent life insurance and investment broker. I have seen a multitude of life insurance scams (by advisors) over the years. So what is your point?

    BRAD ... I have seen many fee-only scams as well over the years. Plus they have a licensed buddy from whom they receive a nice referral fee.

    WILL ... How does a company keep an "ungovernable" advisor for 5 years? Obviously the business he brought to IG (and the dealer overrides) outweighed the PITA factor! Why is IG not being reprimanded?

    BOTTOM LINE .... no amount of compliance or regulation can replace honesty and integrity!
  • Will Ashworth | 01 Sep 2015, 06:06 PM Agree 0
    You're absolutely 100% correct. There is no replacement for honesty.
  • Brad Jardine | 01 Sep 2015, 06:37 PM Agree 0
    My flat fee comment was towards the Dealers. Ban the Grid and eliminate insitutional conflict of interest. Now there's a novel concept isnt it? As i said follow the money.
  • Ken MacCoy, CHS | 01 Sep 2015, 06:49 PM Agree 0
    As Lawrence Geller recently posted: 'I would note that professionals do not hide behind screen names (or first names) in professional discussion forums.' I agree 100% with Lawrence.
  • Ken MacCoy, CHS | 01 Sep 2015, 06:58 PM Agree 0
    Peter ... asked and answered .

    Question: So what is your point?

    Answer: BOTTOM LINE .... no amount of compliance or regulation (or method of compensation) can replace honesty and integrity!

  • Martin | 01 Sep 2015, 08:36 PM Agree 0
    Hey Guys, here is my definition of this orchestra as follow: there are two groups out there, on one are the sharks and on the other the food for the sharks...
  • Niki | 04 Sep 2015, 03:04 PM Agree 0
    It is better to manage people assuming without prejudice that they are naturally greedy to different degrees in the first place, than to assume they have no greed whatsoever, and therefore mismanage them and their clients as such in the long run. Leveraged investing is one of the highest manifestations of greed, whether commission or fee based, makes no difference.
  • Jennifer | 04 Sep 2015, 04:13 PM Agree 0
    I agree with Darin and Peter. If an advisor wants to commit a crime they will find a way to do it and to hide it. No amount of compliance and regualtion will catch rogue advisors, they will simply find a way around it.
Post a reply