Mutual Fund & Regulatory Changes to Financial Advice

An interesting piece contemplating the likely result of a ban on embedded commissions: mutual fund salespeople, unhappy with having to change how they are compensated, will simply move their clients into segregated funds - insurance contracts that are not (at least not now) included in the proposed regulatory changes. (As in, they'll take their bat and go home.)

I don't believe the average person has any idea of what an imbedded commission is or how it affects them. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if most investors of mutual funds had a better understanding of how a black hole works.

Presentation to explain and simplify the regulatory changes to be phased in over the next 3 years.

One of the regular claims against the idea of banning embedded commissions: "But at the end of the day, the total investment costs may very well be going up, not down.”

The argument that the mutual fund industry can muster against banning commissions: Advisors would leave the profession, leaving Canadians without access to professional financial advice. Hm.

Industry groups fight vigorously to protect the status quo By 2016, mutual fund firms and investment dealers will be required to tell their clients what they're paying and how they're doing. Our country's provincial regulators have also initiated discussions as to whether investment advisors should be held to a higher standard of fiduciary duty, rather than the current "best interests."

Recently a business owner asked me to review his investment portfolio. He is currently with an Ameriprise financial advisor and his gut feeling tells him something is amiss. He is paying the advisor 1.6% in fees. First of all, this fee is quite exorbitant. For the size of his portfolio, he shouldn't be paying more...

Investors should not need to consult their lawyers before signing on with an investment advisor The publication of a legal analysis commissioned by two investment industry groups, which suggests Canada is equal to or better than other countries when it comes to the rules governing the relationship between investment advisors and their clients, came under fire from investor advocates and academics on Tuesday.

The move toward a ban on commission fees embedded within mutual funds is still not a certainty, despite a growing movement to eliminate them. Groups such as the Canadian Foundation for Advancement of Investor Rights (FAIR) and the Ontario Securities Commission's Investor Advisory Panel are calling for the outright ban of what's known as trailing fees or trailing commissions.

Expand your knowledge, add your resources and share with the community.

Expand your knowledge, add your resources and share with the community.

Advocis, originally a life insurance selling lobby, has cleverly arranged for a non-life insurance sounding name, and is promoting itself as the holy grail for consumer investment protection. the trouble some financial experts are finding is that the bill does not appear to contain consumer protections, rather simply a change of the powers in charge.

A very clever argument used by those who want to maintain the current embedded commission model for financial advisors goes as follows: When you buy a car, you don't demand to know the size of the salesperson's commission. So, why would you demand to know the commission your financial advisor gets?

CSA-commissioned study on mutual fund fees

Digital workaround culture epitomizes this millennial age. Disruptive technologies - once feared by consumers - are now harnessed by some to circumvent established commercial rules, sales channels and costs. At the forefront of this change are techno-savvy young adults largely shut out of the conventional economy.

Suppose you want to become a financial planner. You can start charging for your services without taking courses, passing exams or getting a licence. That's right. You can quit what you are doing now and start a new career helping people save for education and retirement, reduce taxes, choose the right insurance plans and pass along their assets after they die.

The industry also has argued that transparency is the key, and that this will come with the ultimate adoption of the client relationship model reforms. Yet, some regulators in other countries have stated that disclosure doesn't work - particularly for retail investors, who are at a huge disadvantage relative to the industry in terms of knowledge, resources and bargaining power. And, if disclosure did work as promised, wouldn't the ultimate outcome be the same? Richer clients would demand lower fees, or more service, thus squeezing out less affluent clients in any case. There are few who expect disclosure to solve fundamental, built-in conflicts of interest.