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 | 29 Oct 2015, 09:10 AM Agree 0
Advisors continue to question the veracity of its findings, suggesting regulatory changes to fees might not be a slam dunk
  • Lynda Weinrib | 29 Oct 2015, 10:42 AM Agree 0
    If we are really going to examine how the MER effects performance, why are we not dealing with the fact that some equity funds have paid a larger trailer fee and eliminating this ability to do so to equate the playing field? And why are we not bringing in the lower fee for higher portfolio values? They are part of the equation!
  • Tony Battista | 29 Oct 2015, 12:18 PM Agree 0
    In this society companies, industries, commerce works for a profit. Each business has an operational cost, and a profit, for mutual funds this cost is the MER. Distributors and Financial advisers are compensated for the service they render to the clients by Trailers Fees. Does anyone questions the Pharmacy about the costs, remunerations and profits involved in a prescription? Or the same for a bottle of wine or a meal in a restaurant?
    If a client feels that he is paying too much for a service or an item, he shops around for a better deal. Why should it be different for our industry? If an advisor explains to the client that the MER of 2,25% and includes a trailer of .75% that cover my cost of giving advice and processing fees, where is the abuse or wrong doing?
  • Jen Moore | 30 Oct 2015, 12:33 PM Agree 0
    I'd love to see proper reporting for clients (and myself as an advisor) on the net returns for all load types of a fund as well as the MER for each load type. I work on a 0% Front-End basis and would like to be able to show my clients how this benefits them.
Post a reply