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 | 02 Jun 2015, 09:15 AM Agree 0
A Toronto-area advisor explains why most people selling seg funds today don’t do a good job.
  • Galen Nuttall | 02 Jun 2015, 09:54 AM Agree 0
    I'd be interested in knowing if the author thinks that some of the power of the investment is derived from the guarantees (death benefit, maturity, resets, Lifetime Income Benefit, etc). I find that when it comes to understanding seg funds, many advisors don't fully understand how these features work.
  • Tony Battista | 02 Jun 2015, 10:29 AM Agree 0
    Seg Funds should be sold by those that have a dual licence: Insurance and Mutual Funds. I have experienced in meetings some Insurance Agents not knowing what was more aggressive between an Equity and Income Fund.
  • Julie Fearn Gallant | 02 Jun 2015, 11:10 AM Agree 0
    Insurance advisors should not all be painted with the same brush. Our office is very proactive informing our clients on the benefits derived from seg funds as Galen noted above. We are very hands on making certain that applicable resets are exercised. Guarantees and resets along with proper asset allocation is where the power lies in seg funds.
  • Jason Cohen | 02 Jun 2015, 11:26 AM Agree 0
    As an investment wholesaler with an insurance company, I've found that many advisors don't utilize their wholesaler enough for these products. It's my job to educate the advisor and guide them until they are comfortable with selling Seg Funds. It's too bad because they could not only serve their insurance clients better but build a stronger practice as well.
  • Bob White,CLU | 02 Jun 2015, 12:10 PM Agree 0
    Interesting comments.

    I agree with Tony's comments that Advisors should be dual licenced. To be objective requires choice of solutions.

    To be called a financial advisor should require that the advisor be dual licenced, and be able to offer all kinds of mutual funds, unlike the banks only offering their house funds.

    Stock brokers are investment advisors, but if they offer all the products Seg Mutual funds Insurance, and do planning, then they can hold out as a financial planner.

    The key point to seg funds is that they are insurance contracts, Contracts that have specific language as to guarantees for beneficiaries, income and maturity guarantees, and they are not all the same, so it is imperative that planning take place to see if the contract benefits fits the client needs.

    In most cases they fill a potion of the need. They are also taxed very differently if non reg., and have some valuable estate planning benefits, the fact that they can have beneficiaries named and provide a variety of planning opportunities for estate distribution and succession planning.

    Bob White, CLU

    A member of Advocis since 1977
  • Brian S | 02 Jun 2015, 12:23 PM Agree 0
    Aweful article... where is the research to back her comments.

    "Weismann" says...
    "I (Weissmann) I've followed the Seg Funds I've sold and mover them around sometimes".

    Sometimes- is she meaning once or twice every 25 years that she moves an investments around.
    How do your clients feel about receiving excessive Tax slips at year end, after moving their investments around??? HAPPY?

    They (most advisors) don't do that because there is no pay for that. Except for trailer fees which they get anyway...... So tell me, how do you get paid when, on occassion, you move funds around. I get paid because I know how these funds work, HOW to set up investments "to suit clients needs". I get paid by more constant trailers.... when I protect a client from market downturns in what I invest a clients in... If the client doesn't have a 10+% loss and me a corresponding 10% reduction in trailers. Same hold true that If I do a good job and client makes 4% instead of 1% in GIC, and inflation is 2 % a year, I get a 2% net increase in my (trailers) pay. And, when I do a good job for my clients, they give me more money or bring new clients.... more pay.... pretty simple stuff (Weissmann).

    I have been at many company/Advocis/Pro-seminar sponsored meetings which are jammed packed full of Insurance advisors and Mutual fund advisors alike, learning everything there is to know about Seg Funds and Mutual Funds... "They don't understand the product" Weismann says...Hmmmmm

    What a terrible terrible article . WP should be ashamed. Paints "most insurance advisors" as dumb. Just because you have a Mutual Funds License makes you an expert on investing... Not so Monica Weissmann... but that is how most others would read this into the article.

    I would contend that "Most" advisors do know what they are investing clients money in and for the right reasons, be it Mutual Funds, GICs of Seg Funds... IF THEY ARE SERIOUS ABOUT THEIR "Clients Best Interests".
    I'm sure MOST advisors would agree.

  • Mark | 02 Jun 2015, 03:31 PM Agree 0
    What was the point of this article? I looked for some statement exactly what Galen stated about the benefits of Seg funds but the article seemed to spend more time discussing how some mutual fund advisors may get around CRM2 by becoming insurance licensed in order to 'sell" Seg funds and the only quote referring to what advisors should do is to shift around the investments. I find it hard to believe that Ms. Weissmann argument per the title of this article is that "insurance advsiors" who sell Seg funds don't know about fund allocation and re-allocation depending on certain conditions, and even so, that really isn't the benefits of Seg funds.
  • Will Ashworth | 04 Jun 2015, 08:57 AM Agree 0
    Brian S,
    Monica Weissmann is one of the most competent advisors I've dealt with since joining WP in October 2014.
    I have no problem with you criticizing the article and my writing ability, but Ms. Weissmann is a true professional. Please try to refrain from personal attacks in the future.
    Thanks in advance.
    Will Ashworth
  • Bruce R | 24 Jul 2016, 11:38 PM Agree 0
    As a dual licensed advisor CRM2 has higher cost inputs across the board, therefore more costs to the client for sure. Higher bureaucracy load.
    Since I actively adjust portfolios, I still have
    a mutual fund side since more options like
    resources and strategic gold for times like now
    as fiat fades into defaults and currency devaluations. Now what happens if I manage
    my client portfolio in his name through a discount broker account and just set up my own fee arrangement and eliminate the dealer?

    As a small advisor why should I wait for the
    banks to buy out surviving dealers?. Better may be to deal with the banks now and make easier money?
Post a reply