If the latest round of bank fee increases finally got you upset enough to take action , read this article.
Some apathetic folks are simply taking the approach " If you can't beat em, buy em" and are investing in bank stocks. Over the years the fees they collect from the docile can mean real gains and dividends for shareholders. In any event, there's a feel good emotion thaat some of the client gouging is coming back to you.
This web site is dedicated to investment fund investor education and protection. The multi-billion fund industry plays a key role in the savings and retirement plans of millions of Canadians. Many industry practices provide beartraps for the unsuspecting investor and securities regulations have not kept up with the pace of change in the industry.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Case study : The reality of Investor Protection in Canada
This case will open your eyes . The sad reality is when you invest you have to be constantly on guard. There are many forces working against you and too few forces working to protect you from Bay Street shenanigans. Be aware that your “ advisor” is not required to act in your
Best interests .
He/she may also be motivated by sales commissions to
actually place you and your retirement in harm’s way. CAVEAT EMPTOR prevails in Canada’s “ Wealth Management
industry “, an industry creating wealth but not necessarily for you.
Sunday, May 3, 2015
Equity Crowdfunding poses significant risks for main Street
Equity Crowdfunding is coming whether we like it or not - you need to be ready.Companies raising capital on regulated, public stock markets must jump through all sorts of disclosure hoops intended to protect the public from fraud. When they raise capital in private markets, often for early-stage companies, they may generally tap only "accredited" investors--those who can prove they are wealthy and sophisticated enough to participate in what are inherently risky ventures.
What if you could remove both constraints, allowing issuers to offer securities to the general public without the rigorous disclosures required when "going public"? That's Equity Crowdfunding .
Read more here
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Brokers get a mixed review on how they treat older investors: SEC- FINRA Report
One of the primary missions of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) is the protection of
investors, of which senior investors are an important and growing
subset. As part of a collaborative effort, staff of the SEC’s
Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”)1 and
FINRA (collectively, the “staff”) conducted 44 examinations of
broker-dealers in 2013 that focused on how firms conduct business
with senior investors as they prepare for and enter into retirement.
These examinations focused on investors aged 65 years old or older;
this report refers to these investors as “senior investors.”
The results suggest more has to be
done.“..More than a third of brokerage firms examined by regulators
made one or more potentially unsuitable recommendations of variable
annuities to senior investors, a report issued Wednesday found.The
greatest issue regarding these sales was whether it was appropriate
to exchange variable annuity contracts in light of the fees incurred,
according to the
report on the treatment of senior investors
by
the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority Inc.(FINRA), the self-regulator of brokers.
Firms generated the most revenue from
seniors by selling open-end mutual funds, variable annuities,
equities, fixed-income investments, unit investment trusts and
exchange-traded funds, nontraded real estate investment trusts,
alternative investments and structured products, in that order..”.
This report highlights recent industry
trends that have impacted the investment landscape and discusses the
key observations and practices identified during the recent series of
examinations with regard to securities sold to senior investors,
training, use of senior designations, marketing and communications,
account documentation, suitability, disclosures, customer complaints,
and supervision. OCIE and FINRA staff are providing this information
to broker-dealers to support their thoughtful analysis of their
policies and procedures as they serve the needs of senior investors.
OCIE and FINRA staff are concerned that
broker-dealers may be recommending unsuitable securities to senior
investors or failing to adequately disclose the related risks. It is
imperative that senior investors receive proper and understandable
disclosures regarding the terms and risks related to securities
recommended to them, particularly non-traditional investments.
The 41 page Report National Senior
Investor Initiative is available at
http://www.sec.gov/ocie/reportspubs/sec-finra-national-senior-investor-initiative-report.pdf
Stock buybacks: From retain-and reinvest to downsize-and-distribute By William Lazonick
Stock buybacks are an important explanation for both the concentration of
income among the richest households and the disappearance of middle-class
employment opportunities in the United States over the past three decades,”
says University of Massachussetts at Lowell economics professor William
Lazonick in a new paper published
by the Brookings Institution. “Over this period, corporate resource-allocation
at many, if not most, major U.S. business corporations has transitioned from
“retain-and-reinvest” to “downsize and distribute model.
It is unlikely that the transformation of the U.S. business
corporation from downsize-and-distribute to retain-andreinvest can occur
without the leadership of the more visionary of current corporate board
members, CEOs among them. In 2001, Jack Welch, upon his retirement as CEO of
General Electric, published a book, Jack: Straight from the Gut, about his
experience as a business leader.85 But it took Dr. Welch another eight years
and a financial crisis to get his gut to speak to the absurdity of the ideology
of maximizing shareholder value. In March 2009 Welch told a Financial Times
reporter: “On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the
world. Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy…Your main constituencies
are your employees, your customers and your products.” Perhaps the interviewer
had a shocked look because Welch saw fit to reiterate: “It is a dumb idea. The
idea that shareholder value is a strategy is insane. It is the product of your
combined efforts – from the management to the employees.”86 Any business
executive, business school professor, or business consultant who understands
what it is that makes an enterprise innovative should know that, in this case
at least, Jack Welch was right. Read this thought provoking article at
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/04/17-stock-buybacks-lazonick/lazonick.pdf
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/04/17-stock-buybacks-lazonick/lazonick.pdf
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Check your brokerage service and maintenance fees
NASAA
research shows investor confusion over fees|
. A
new advisory from the North American Securities Administrators
Association (NASAA) aims to help raise investor awareness about fees
charged by broker-dealer firms for account services and maintenance. In
the advisory,
NASAA suggests investors focus on the timing, method and content of
these sorts of fee disclosures. It calls on investors to not place
assets with a firm without a current fee schedule, to ensure that
they understand those fees, and to pay attention to any changes that
firms make to those fees. Additionally, it says that investors should
know the services that they could use regularly, and ask specifically
about the terminology a firm uses for its services and the associated
fees. http://www.nasaa.org/35290/informed-investor-advisory-understanding-broker-dealer-fees/
Full Report Are you an
informed investor? Understanding Broker-Dealer Fees available at
http://www.nasaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/BD-Fee-Advisory.pdf Fees impact returns- make sure you know what fees you are paying and that you receive the services associated with the fees.Don't hesitate to ask about seniors rebates, asset-based discounts etc. -It's your money.
Friday, April 3, 2015
“Risk Literacy”
Using domestic and international data, Director Annamaria Lusardi finds that knowledge of
financial risk is strikingly low both in the population and across a variety of demographics.
Across countries and age groups, individuals show little mastery of concepts such as risk
diversification and the relationship between risk and return. Indeed, in financial literacy surveys
assessing knowledge of interest compounding, inflation, and risk, respondents consistently
performed worst on the risk-related question. Knowledge of risk is critical to making decisions
about saving and retirement planning. These findings have implications for individuals, policy
makers, and the financial and insurance industry. While individuals are facing increasingly
complex financial and insurance instruments, their low risk literacy may limit their ability to use
these instruments on a micro level, and—on a macro level—impede the development of wellfunctioning
financial markets.
Read the full paper here
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Brokers misleading investors about fiduciary duty: PIABA Report
The U.S. organization , the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association ( PIABA) has issued a report highlighting how U.S. brokerages mislead investors as to the true nature of the dealer- client relationship.
They want Federal action to stop U.S. Brokerage Firms misleading investors about their role as fiduciaries, which Firms deny to block arbitration claims.
"Investors believe they are doing
business with individuals they can trust, because the brokers use
titles which imply trust, their advertisements give the impression
they can be trusted, and the brokers say they can be trusted to look
out for the best interests of their clients. A survey of the
major brokerage firms show consistency in the advertising, in the
tone they take on their websites, and the impression that they intend
to leave on investors," said the report's other co-author,
Christine Lazaro, director, Securities Arbitration Clinic at St.
John's University School of Law.
"Yet when that trust is breached,
a survey of answers filed in arbitrations demonstrate that these same
firms disclaim liability when held to account in arbitration, and
rely on case law to say no such duty exists. The public face of the
firms is that they hold themselves to the highest standards, while
the private face of the firms, in the arbitration forum where
everything is non-public, is that they are mere order-takers,"
she says.
https://piaba.org/system/files/pdfs/PIABA%20Fiduciary%20Study%20News%20Release.pdf
A similar situation exists
in Canada.Some examples of what has been dubbed The Grand Deception:
A survey of business titles by the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) found that there is a wide array of business titles in use by licensed representatives both across firms
and, in some cases, within the same firm.
Some of the more commonly used business titles that were reported through the survey
include: Advisor, Financial Advisor, Financial Assistant, Investment Advisor, Senior Investment
Advisor, Financial Consultant, Personal Finance Consultant, Financial Planner, Certified
Financial Planner, Wealth Advisor, Investment Associate, Private Client Principal, Private Client
Associate, Retirement Specialist, Consultant to Seniors, Vice President, Senior Vice President,
and Managing Director. IIROC concluded that many of these business titles do not, on their own, provide a meaningful description of the
type of services and/or investment products that a licensed representative can offer to a client.
Some of these business titles imply that the individual carries out an executive function within
a firm, for example, Senior Vice President, where the individual is not, in fact, a corporate
officer of the firm. IIROC also found that there is a wide array of financial designations that licensed
representatives possess and may put forward, in addition to their business titles, in their
dealings with clients. While some financial designations, including professional designations like the Chartered
Accountant designation, require a specified number of years of work or hours of classroom
study, passing an examination, and continuing education, the requirements for others are
much less rigorous. In fact, some financial designations may be obtained after a weekend
seminar or through online self-study, with a self-administered examination.These
titles facilitate sales person gaining investors’ trust and enabling the
sales persons to sell products and implement strategies that are not in the investors’ best interests.
Another common example is the recommendation of
proprietary mutual funds (which
often bear the name of the brokerage firm). There are often similar, less
expensive index funds or other mutual funds available with higher expected
returns. A fiduciary couldn’t recommend proprietary funds if they weren’t the
best option. A broker has no such constraints and can do so with impunity.
How about this declaration ? Your goals are unique, and BMO Nesbitt Burns Investment Advisors are here to help you develop a plan that's right for your needs. Working with us you can expect open,trusted and transparent advice... https://www.bmo.com/nesbittburns Sounds like you'll be provided advice that is in your Best interests, eh?
A number of OBSI recommendation cases cases further illustrate the two-faced issue . Equity Associates refused to compensate a retired couple in the amount of $83,386. After the couple sold their home, their advisor invested the proceeds in unsuitable medium-risk and high-risk mutual funds.Richardson GMP refused to compensate several investors in the amounts of $232,500 and $66,366. They entrusted their retirement savings to an advisor who ignored their investment objectives and risk tolerance.Armstrong & Quaile refused to compensate a retired couple for $34,000 after their advisor urged them to borrow to invest. They sold their investments after a market decline to cover a debt they could not afford to service.Monarch Wealth Corp refused to compensate a young couple, new to Canada, in the amount of $30,628. They borrowed to invest after being told by their advisor they would not incur any losses.Despite the Ombudsman's comprehensive independent complaint investigation, the dealers refused to accept accountability or provide restitution.
Other excuses that dealers use when responding to a client complaint include:
1. Blaming the investor- greedy , didn't pay attention to forms signed
2. Falsely claiming that because the account is a discretionary one, no duty of care is required
3. Wrongly asserting that the responsibility for determining suitability rests with the client
4. Incorrectly asserting that ,even though the investments are unsuitable, the dealer is not accountable because risks were disclosed to the client
5. Refusing to accept responsibility if "advisor " has sold products off the books of the dealer . Sometimes dealers are willfully blind if a " producer" is harvesting a client and when things turn ugly claim that they knew nothing about the egregious behavior and are not accountable.
A recent example of the latter practice involves a case involving FUNDEX Investments Inc. http://www.obsi.ca/images/Documents/IR/refusal/fundex_investigaton_mr_and_mrs_s.pdf . In that case FUNDEX argued that they had not approved sale of the exempt market product and the client must have known they were not dealing with FUNDEX. The OBSI complaint investigator found otherwise and recommended full restitution. The dealer refused and the victims must now decide if they wish to proceed with civil litigation or walk away with a hard lesson on who they can trust. From the FUNDEX website we note: " Since 1995, FundEX Investments Inc. has been providing independent financial advisors with an established, fixed fee business model that enables them to access a wide variety of quality investment products to best meet the needs of Canadian Investors."
Brokers and insurance companies are fighting hard to avoid becoming fiduciaries. They are currently held to the lower “suitability” standard. This means they can recommend investment products that may not be the best option available to help you reach your financial goals, as long as they are “suitable.” CAVEAT EMPTOR!
A number of OBSI recommendation cases cases further illustrate the two-faced issue . Equity Associates refused to compensate a retired couple in the amount of $83,386. After the couple sold their home, their advisor invested the proceeds in unsuitable medium-risk and high-risk mutual funds.Richardson GMP refused to compensate several investors in the amounts of $232,500 and $66,366. They entrusted their retirement savings to an advisor who ignored their investment objectives and risk tolerance.Armstrong & Quaile refused to compensate a retired couple for $34,000 after their advisor urged them to borrow to invest. They sold their investments after a market decline to cover a debt they could not afford to service.Monarch Wealth Corp refused to compensate a young couple, new to Canada, in the amount of $30,628. They borrowed to invest after being told by their advisor they would not incur any losses.Despite the Ombudsman's comprehensive independent complaint investigation, the dealers refused to accept accountability or provide restitution.
Other excuses that dealers use when responding to a client complaint include:
1. Blaming the investor- greedy , didn't pay attention to forms signed
2. Falsely claiming that because the account is a discretionary one, no duty of care is required
3. Wrongly asserting that the responsibility for determining suitability rests with the client
4. Incorrectly asserting that ,even though the investments are unsuitable, the dealer is not accountable because risks were disclosed to the client
5. Refusing to accept responsibility if "advisor " has sold products off the books of the dealer . Sometimes dealers are willfully blind if a " producer" is harvesting a client and when things turn ugly claim that they knew nothing about the egregious behavior and are not accountable.
A recent example of the latter practice involves a case involving FUNDEX Investments Inc. http://www.obsi.ca/images/Documents/IR/refusal/fundex_investigaton_mr_and_mrs_s.pdf . In that case FUNDEX argued that they had not approved sale of the exempt market product and the client must have known they were not dealing with FUNDEX. The OBSI complaint investigator found otherwise and recommended full restitution. The dealer refused and the victims must now decide if they wish to proceed with civil litigation or walk away with a hard lesson on who they can trust. From the FUNDEX website we note: " Since 1995, FundEX Investments Inc. has been providing independent financial advisors with an established, fixed fee business model that enables them to access a wide variety of quality investment products to best meet the needs of Canadian Investors."
Brokers and insurance companies are fighting hard to avoid becoming fiduciaries. They are currently held to the lower “suitability” standard. This means they can recommend investment products that may not be the best option available to help you reach your financial goals, as long as they are “suitable.” CAVEAT EMPTOR!
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Research paper on Ponzi schemes: Cam McCormick University of Lethbridge
The Earl Jones scam is a particularly interesting read.
GET MAD, STAY MAD: EXPLORING STAKEHOLDER MOBILIZATION IN
THE INSTANCE OF CORPORATE FRAUD AND PONZI SCHEMES
Abstract:Using a multi-case study, three Ponzi schemes
were investigated: Road2Gold, Bernie Madoff’s empire, and the Earl Jones
affair. This grounded study used an inductive bottom-up methodology to observe
and describe stakeholder mobilization in reaction to corporate fraud. This
research on stakeholder behaviour in Ponzi schemes articulates new theory for
describing stakeholder behaviour and possible determinants for successful
mobilization to action. The data presented here point to a useful distinction
in the stakeholders in a corporate fraud: reluctant and engaged stakeholders.
Reluctant stakeholders seek only interest-based ends, whereas engaged
stakeholders have additional identity and ideological goals shared by a
mobilized group.
Read the paper here
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Checklist: Was your complaint handled fairly?
It's no secret- investment dealers hate to admit they provided bad financial advice. They will try very hard to avoid accountability for losses.
You should assume the relationship between you and the complaint investigators is adversarial regardless of the soothing words of fairness and unbiased investigation. Some very smart seasoned people are reviewing your complaint to ensure the dealer is immunized from providing restitution. This Checklist should help you determine just how objective the investigation has been Read the Checklist here.
Related readings :
Calculation of Damages: Securities Fraud & Protection Resource Center http://www.securitieslaw.com/information/calculation-of-damages.asp
Resolving Investor Disputes : Is your Advisor to Blame?
Compensation for Retail Investors :The Social impact of Monetary Loss https://www.asic.gov.au/media/1343636/rep240-published-May-2011.pdf
The industry has a longstanding over reliance on form
documents such as disclosure forms, agreements, account statements
and KYC forms, seeking to meet regulatory KYC and suitability
obligations; however, more and more, courts and regulators are
looking to the record of direct communications between the advisor
and client to assess the degree to which the advisor's
recommendations and the client's instructions were truly informed
regarding risk and suitability issues. In some cases the 'paper' is
not a barrier to the imposition of liability for losses sustained by
the client.That should be your mindset as you assess the dealer's
response letter.
You should assume the relationship between you and the complaint investigators is adversarial regardless of the soothing words of fairness and unbiased investigation. Some very smart seasoned people are reviewing your complaint to ensure the dealer is immunized from providing restitution. This Checklist should help you determine just how objective the investigation has been Read the Checklist here.
Related readings :
Calculation of Damages: Securities Fraud & Protection Resource Center http://www.securitieslaw.com/information/calculation-of-damages.asp
Resolving Investor Disputes : Is your Advisor to Blame?
Compensation for Retail Investors :The Social impact of Monetary Loss https://www.asic.gov.au/media/1343636/rep240-published-May-2011.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
