Skip to main content
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

The idea that investors will be adviser-less if fee reforms are made is wrong. Online advisers are already emerging as a cost-effective way to build a retirement savings plan.

scyther5/Getty Images/iStockphoto

Advisory minefield

Re Why we'd celebrate a ban on trailer fees (July 20): Regulators should not get into the business of determining whether an individual or individuals are getting value for their money from financial advisers, save perhaps in clearly extreme situations. The courts have wisely chosen to generally stay out of this sort of minefield.

David O'Leary's suggestion that financial literacy be promoted should be the first step in making Canadians aware of the need to consider what it is exactly they are being offered and why.

Story continues below advertisement

Perhaps a reasonable level of awareness will reduce public susceptibility to various scams, frauds and overhyped promotions.

Richard Austin, Toronto

Despite the suggestion otherwise, there is strong evidence that Britain's ban on embedded commissions has resulted in an advice gap in that country. The harmful effects of forcing investors to pay directly for advice have been publicly acknowledged by Britain's own Financial Regulatory Authority.

At its annual public meeting this month, the FCA's chief executive acknowledged that its package of reforms, including the commissions ban, has driven advisers from the market and made the cost of advice prohibitively expensive for many investors. This conclusion is supported by the regulator's data showing that the proportion of retail investment products sold without advice has significantly increased since commissions were banned, from roughly 40 per cent in 2011-12 to about two-thirds in 2014-15.

No one is suggesting that investors be forced to pay commissions – simply that they continue to have a choice in the matter. Not everyone can afford to pay an up-front hourly fee of $100 to $300.

Banning commissions would put financial advice beyond the reach of those who need it most, and that's nothing to celebrate.

Wade Baldwin, president of Baldwin & Associates Financial Services, Calgary, and chair of Advocis, the Financial Advisors Association of Canada

Story continues below advertisement

Fee transparency for financial advisers is long overdue in Canada. The Canadian Securities Administrators' new CRM2 rules, which just came into effect (What new disclosure rules for advisory fees mean for you, July 15), will provide investors with a clearer picture of the fees and remuneration their brokers, advisers or portfolio managers receive in return for their investments – but will fail to deal with the biggest challenge facing investors.

Advisers are still under no obligation to tell their clients about opportunities that are in their best interest, only those that are suitable. As a result, investors may miss out on investment opportunities simply because a suitable investment better rewards their advisers.

When reviewing investment opportunities, investors should ask their advisers whether all of their existing or proposed investments are truly their best options, not just whether they are suitable.

Only when advisers are obliged to inform clients of all their options will the industry be able to claim true fee transparency.

Mo Lidsky, partner and senior managing director, Prime Quadrant, Toronto

This all reminds me of the best advice I ever heard about choosing a financial adviser: "If he's not rich, don't listen to him."

Story continues below advertisement

Martin Birt, Markham, Ont.

Letters to the editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit by e-mail, send to: letters@globeandmail.com.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies