Home Insight Letters to the Editor

Latest news in Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

Bias on embedded commissions ban?

Investment industry players that favour a ban are either far removed from the average investor or could benefit directly from it

Letters to the editor: IIROC firms already meet the best interests of their clients

IIROC firms already meet the best interests of their clients

Regulators’ proposals to impose a best interests standard would be “duplicative and confusing”

Letters to the editor: IIROC firms already meet the best interests of their clients

Explanations are needed — please

How will removing embedded commissions enhance the client experience? And how will a fiduciary standard work exactly?

  • By: Don Janzen
  • August 15, 2016 January 16, 2018
  • 16:20
Letters to the editor: IIROC firms already meet the best interests of their clients

A cheap, simple and effective solution

By eliminating incentives, we’re driving down excellence by rewarding minimum expectation

Letters to the editor: IIROC firms already meet the best interests of their clients

Commissions influence advisors’ recommendations

The conflicts of interest in selling products with embedded commissions are enormous, as evidence shows

Letters to the editor: IIROC firms already meet the best interests of their clients

Compensation has nothing to do with being a professional

Banning a specific type of compensation will not magically turn abusers into non-abusers. They will just find new ways to abuse

Targeted rules and firm culture needed, not best interest standard

Client's best interest not effectively achieved by a specific rule or regulation

Letters to the editor: IIROC firms already meet the best interests of their clients

Only the profession itself can interpret a best interest standard

Implementing a best interest standard and leaving the oversight of advisors to the existing regulators is not a viable option

Letters to the editor: IIROC firms already meet the best interests of their clients

Letters to the Editor: No confusion, Advocis says

As the U.K. reconsiders rules banning embedded commissions, Advocis reaffirms its commitment to both raising proficiency standards for advisors and embedded compensation

Letters to the Editor: Proficiency, not commissions, reduces number of advisors

It’s worth reviewing the experience of the U.K., where advisors have faced higher proficiency standards since 2013

Letters to the editor: IIROC firms already meet the best interests of their clients

Letters to the Editor: Commission-based advisors can be held to highest standards

John De Goey’s response to Advocis fails to address how clients will suffer if many have to leave the business

Letters to the editor: IIROC firms already meet the best interests of their clients

Letters to the Editor: Confusion at Advocis?

It seems contradictory to ask for both the retention of embedded fees and higher standards for financial advisors

Letters to the editor: IIROC firms already meet the best interests of their clients

Letters to the Editor: Higher professional standards needed

To protect clients, Advocis supports a new professional accreditation for financial advisors. Failure to do so will leave regulatory gaps.

Letters to the editor: IIROC firms already meet the best interests of their clients

Embedded fees provide clients with options

Transparency issues are being addressed by CRM2

Letters to the editor: IIROC firms already meet the best interests of their clients

Banning embedded fees will hurt investors, Advocis says

A recent report finds most people prefer the commission model

Extend “profession” status to all advisors

Only regulating the title “financial planner” still leaves consumers at risk

Commissions exist only as a choice

Where are the safeguards to ensure fee-based advisors aren’t collecting a fee for doing nothing?

It’s well past time for reforms

Gross is not saying that advice shouldn't be paid for; he is only saying that the investment advice that investors receive should be unbiased of…

A refreshing read

Greg Pollock’s rebuttal to Neil Gross is bang-on. It gives hope to many hard-working advisors preparing to leave the industry

Arguments in favour of commissions ignore some key points

Both Pollock and Archibald gloss over the pre-eminent concern in this discussion: that embedded compensation unequivocally causes bias

Argument is nothing but bluster

Neil Gross’s column completely ignores any of the advantages of trailing commissions — and they do exist

Banning commissions has proven to be a failure

No one is suggesting that investors be forced to pay commissions — simply that they should have a choice in the matter

One regulator and one advisor association is needed

Financial advisors should have a regulatory structure similar to those of lawyers, accountants, dentists and other professionals

  • By: Brian Seim
  • January 14, 2016 January 16, 2018
  • 17:15

The MFDA has no business regulating financial planners

There needs to be a national organization that governs financial planning with ethics and educational standards

Insurance ombudsman doesn’t seek greater enforcement powers

OLHI finds that non-binding recommendations are effective