Keyword: Letters to the editor

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

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

  • By: Don Janzen
  • August 15, 2016 November 12, 2019
  • 16:20
Letters to the editor: IIROC firms already meet the best interests of their clients

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

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

  • By: Ken Kivenko
  • August 12, 2016 November 12, 2019
  • 13:25
Letters to the editor: IIROC firms already meet the best interests of their clients

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

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

Banning embedded fees will reduce options for smaller investors

  • By: Brad Brain
  • August 9, 2016 August 9, 2016
  • 16:00
Letters to the editor: IIROC firms already meet the best interests of their clients

Provincial difference of opinion on a new standard for advisors does not presage a divided co-operative securities regulator

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

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

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

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

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