Skip to main content

David O'Leary, CFA, MBA is managing partner at Eden Valley Partners, a wealth management practice in Toronto

The Canadian Securities Administrators recently took another step closer to banning embedded sales commissions to financial advisers. My colleagues and I celebrated this news, since we believe a ban on commissions would be a huge win for both investors and our industry. Surprisingly, many industry stakeholders still argue against a ban.

Here's why they're wrong.

Story continues below advertisement

Embedded sales commissions (also known as trailer fees) have two contentious problems: They create a conflict between the interests of adviser and clients, and they obfuscate the fees investors pay.

Embedded commissions present a conflict of interest because the adviser is being paid by the very provider of the investments they are recommending to clients. It would be like your doctor getting paid by pharmaceutical companies for prescribing their drugs to you. Even worse is the fact that different investments pay different commission amounts to advisers. So as an investor, you don't know whether your investments are the very best ones out there, or just the ones that rewarded your adviser most handsomely.

The second problem with commissions is that they are embedded within a larger fee (known as the MER, or management expense ratio) that bundles together all sorts of fees to various parties. This makes the amount a client pays the adviser far less transparent. In my experience, most clients don't realize their adviser receives any part of the MER – if they're even aware they are paying an MER.

Those who object to a ban on commissions are almost exclusively people who stand to profit from them. And they offer a variety of disingenuous arguments to defend them.

One common argument is that banning commissions would hurt investors since it would reduce the amount of choice they have in how they pay for financial advice. Portfolio manager John De Goey has been quoted with an excellent response to this: "Today, most restaurants offer a choice between tap water and carbonated water. Would adding a third option – toilet water – make for better outcomes?"

Another common argument claims that Britain banned commissions to disastrous effect. Claims are made that banning commissions created an advice gap, where smaller investors can't find advisers willing to serve them. This is blatant disinformation. No one knows precisely what impact the banning of commissions has had there. There are two reasons for this. First, we don't have enough data yet. The British ban came into effect just more than three years ago. And second, banning commissions was just one part of a sweeping set of changes known as the Retail Distribution Review.

Britain's Financial Conduct Authority has attempted to measure the impact of these changes and published a number of reports. Everyone admits their conclusions are tenuous, though, given how little data we have . Moreover, these changes were made against the backdrop of an evolving technological and sociological landscape, so that it may never be possible to isolate the effect of banning commissions from all the confounding variables.

Story continues below advertisement

More important, we have good reasons not to fear a dramatic advice gap in Canada. We have a healthy and robust banking system that gives the vast majority of us access to advice at a reasonable cost. And we have been a beneficiary of the trend toward robo-advisers.

Instead of fighting a commissions ban, let's promote financial literacy. That starts with clear information about what investors are paying for advice, and a system of adviser compensation that allows investors to trust they are receiving objective advice.

If we're successful, the industry won't have to hide the true cost of financial advice, because Canadians will see its full value and willingly pay a reasonable fee for it.

Report an error
Comments

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:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • 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

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

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.
Cannabis pro newsletter