CRM2 delay: advisors have their say

CRM2 delay: advisors have their say

CRM2 delay: advisors have their say By now most are aware that IIAC has asked IIROC for a six-month extension on the final implementation of CRM2. Already more than two years in, does it really make sense to prolong the process until the end of 2016?

There are two reasons why the advisor community would support the call by IIAC to move the first reporting period to the end of 2017. First, it makes more sense on the calendar than July 15. Secondly, IIAC represents the investment industry, of which advisors are a part.

The OSCs independent Investment Advisory Panel (IAP) is opposed to any delay stating, “We believe the request for delay is not justified and is not in the public interest… Canadian investors have waited long enough for disclosure of the costs and investment performance of their accounts.”

No words were ever spoken so true.

WP spoke to two Toronto fee-based financial planners Tuesday for their thoughts on the requested delay. Both Scott Plaskett and Victor Godinho are ready for CRM2. They say bring it on.  

Plaskett, who’s had his own financial planning firm since 1993, believes “transparency is a huge deal for investors.” His company, Ironshield Financial Planning, has been providing complete fee disclosure for clients since hanging up his shingle.

Plaskett charges a predetermined fee for creating a comprehensive financial plan. Clients who require investment expertise to carry out the plan are referred to an investment counsellor personally selected by Ironshield; the investment counsellor then makes the requisite investments based on the allocations set out in the investment plan section of the financial planning process.

At no point are the fees a mystery due to an annual engagement letter.

As Plaskett puts it, “Advisors who are able to justify their fees” will have no problem with the July 2016 implementation of CRM2. The IAP, it seems, aren’t the only ones who think the sooner CRM2 is fully implemented, the better.

Why can’t IIAC see it that way?