GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Index of forum topics, talk to us.

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Sun Mar 17, 2013 2:57 pm

Screen Shot 2013-03-17 at 3.58.54 PM.png



http://www.advisor.ca/images/other/aer/ ... leplay.pdf

senior compliance officer writes about how investment sellers play games with their titles to help fool clients

porado
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2846
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Sun Mar 17, 2013 2:51 pm

improve Know Your Client (KYC) forms. “If you think having a client choose from three to five risk categories without creating a common language of what that means is acceptable, then you’re kidding yourself,” Geller says.


Screen Shot 2013-03-17 at 3.49.20 PM.png



(May 19, 2005) Are you taking notes? You need to be if you want to fend off lawsuits from clients looking to claim you sold products that didn’t suit their circumstances, says Harold Geller, a partner at Milton, Geller in Ottawa.

“Professionals are easy to sue,” he said at the conference. “How can you know every mutual fund? You can’t. But the courts say you have to.”

He says advisors need to come to grips with the fact that clients’ memories will often outstrip their own. An advisor has multiple meetings in the course of a day. But the client likely only had one, and will better remember details because he or she was making decisions about how to invest significant sums of money.

At another Peel session, Gowlings lawyer Ellen Bessner noted the problem is exacerbated by the fact most advisors aren’t paid by the hour. They make money if a client decides to invest, so there’s an innate desire to move on from conversations that aren’t producing. “That doesn’t work in this environment,” she warns. “You need to take the time to explain things in a way the client understands. And then you need proof of what you said, and what they said to you.”

If a slide presentation was made, that needs to be mentioned. The date and time of the meeting, and who attended, should appear in notes kept in the client’s file. “The client remembers these things,” says Geller. “They’ll remember the weather. They’ll remember if they signed blank forms.”

It’s not good enough for an advisor to jot down five things that were said during a two-hour conversation. The goal should be to create a fact file thorough enough to make a lawyer reluctant to take a client’s case on contingency. Bessner says most clients don’t take notes, so it falls to the advisor to create records. “The rogue client is not seen as a rogue client until we unveil that,” she says. “You do that by having documentary evidence. If they have no records, and you do, you’re better off.”

In the aftermath of the Portus debacle, Geller reminds firms of their duty to both advise and dissuade clients. Products like universal life and hedge funds are highly complex and it’s up to advisors to understand what they’re selling so clients can make informed decisions. “Put the risks before them,” he says. “Clients can only take risks if they understand them.”

One way to make it tougher for clients to sue is to improve Know Your Client (KYC) forms. “If you think having a client choose from three to five risk categories without creating a common language of what that means is acceptable, then you’re kidding yourself,” Geller says.

Instead, he suggests looking at templates offered by Advocis and other membership organizations. What do these forms have in common? Generally, they’re longer and ask questions that can’t be answered with a simple yes or no. They require a dialogue and get the client to talk about things like cash flow, and the financial needs of other generations.

Related News Stories

Advocis Conference Update: Get organized to avoid legal claims
When an advisor completes an analysis, Geller says, it needs to be sent to the client with a request to have the facts confirmed. Any corrections must show in the file. Further, if you suggest a particular type of insurance coverage and the client refuses, have him sign off. When going through a contract, have the client initial every page to indicate it’s been read. Highlight key terms, and have the client initial those too.

“It’s a common-sense process,” says Geller. “It’s also a sales opportunity, because if you look professional, then your client has more respect for you.”

Filed by Philip Porado, Advisor’s Edge, philip.porado@advisor.rogers.com

(05/19/05)



http://www.advisor.ca/news/industry-new ... erts-32399
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2846
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Sun Mar 17, 2013 2:43 pm

Screen Shot 2013-03-17 at 3.38.33 PM.png


If there is no paper, we can only hope (or pray) that the judge finds the complaining client’s version of events completely lacking in plausibility and credibility. Only in those circumstances will the advisor be relieved from culpability.



(October 27,2003) When you visit your doctor, accountant or lawyer, you see that they take notes during your meeting, which are stored in a file with your name on it. Financial planners and advisors — in fact, any financial professional — must diligently maintain files that reflect communication with clients, from the first contact through all subsequent meetings and telephone conversations. The files, whether paper or electronic, must be maintained in a chronological and organized fashion.

When training advisors, I explain what they must do and how they can incorporate these practices into their daily routine. The most important element, however, is explaining why they should maintain written records. If they don’t learn to value the exercise, they will never engage in it.

The purpose of this article is to review the importance of maintaining a paper or electronic trail and to outline how you should prepare your trail to be most beneficial to you.

Why bother to maintain a trail?

The paper or electronic trail was developed long ago by professionals to protect themselves. When your doctor sees hundreds of patients and sees you only once a year, how can he possibly remember your history? How would you judge your doctor if he didn’t take any notes and ended up prescribing a drug for you that you previously told him you were allergic to? You would likely conclude that the doctor doesn’t know how to perform his job competently and responsibly. And you would be right.

How can a doctor perform his job properly if he doesn’t take notes? If you did take the prescribed drug and had a bad reaction, the doctor would defend himself at the College of Physicians & Surgeons, asserting that you never told him about your allergy. Of course you would have a clear recollection of telling him because it’s an issue that you are concerned about and your evidence would be that you always tell doctors about this allergy on your first visit. If your doctor doesn’t have any notes from his first meeting with you, he would not be in a position to remember or challenge your evidence.

Furthermore, any third party judging your evidence would likely give you the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because it is the obligation of the professional to have a system in place whereby information imparted to him by the client is recorded for future use. And since the doctor sees several hundred (if not thousands) of patients each year and you only see a few doctors (hopefully just one or two a year), it is likely that your recollection of the meeting is clearer than the doctor’s.

The lesson for you

I’m sure that you get the picture — in the context of an advisor-client relationship, the same holds true. You, the professional, are expected to maintain notes so that you can protect yourself from clients who assert that they told you one thing and you did something else. If you took notes during the meetings that reflect concerns or instructions the client imparted to you, then you will have proof. This will support your version of events and will likely convince a judge that your version is more accurate than your client’s, which is dependent on memory alone, as few clients take notes during meetings with their advisors.

In my job, I defend advisors against regulators or clients. When I meet an advisor for the first time, I hope that he has a trail that proves at the very least he was diligent and at the most, his version is recorded in notes, letters, memos, etc. If there is no paper, we can only hope (or pray) that the judge finds the complaining client’s version of events completely lacking in plausibility and credibility. Only in those circumstances will the advisor be relieved from culpability.

Many advisors have challenged me on this issue — they say this cannot be true because we live in a country that is supposed to assume a person is innocent unless proven guilty. I explain that in civil law, when clients sue their professional advisors, although the onus is on the client to prove his case, he can simply tell his story to a judge. It is then the advisor’s turn to prove that the client’s testimony is untrue through his own testimony and hopefully, with supporting documentation.

Solid paper or electronic records can sometimes even spare you from having to appear in front of a judge at all. If you have records of meetings or telephone calls with the client who is complaining, I can call opposing counsel early in the proceedings to convince him that his client has no case. This might end the litigation. If, however, you don’t have any paper, then your chequebook is the only thing that can settle the matter.

Now that you are (hopefully) convinced that a paper or electronic trail is absolutely necessary, here are some tips on preparing your trail:

How to paper your file?

If you follow the four “Cs” of proper record keeping, your files will protect you through good times and bad. The four “Cs” are:

Correct
Complete
Contemporaneous
Current
It is easy to say that record keeping must be accurate, but that means that everyone on your team must work together with systems that ensure the information in the file is correct. For the information to be correct, it must also be complete and current. If the information is incomplete or outdated, this could have an effect on the suitability of — among other things — your investment recommendations.

Recently, the Financial Planners Standards Council (FPSC) proposed practice standards that incorporate certain record keeping elements. Instead of a standard know-your-client form, the FPSC describes in more precise terms the information required to formulate a plan for any client. Such a plan is set out in a written financial planning report.

The FPSC also intends to introduce the concept of an engagement letter to formalize the mandate of the CFP. Such a letter must be complete and correct and must be updated if any element in the plan is affected by any client change. The FPSC draft practice standards compel CFPs to update the engagement letter every year.

If an advisor keeps written records, including notes from all telephone conversations and meetings, and sends letters to the client from time to time confirming his mandate and explaining the risks associated with any investment recommended, the advisor will be in a better position to defend himself when the regulator or client comes a-knocking.

• • •

Ellen J. Bessner is a partner at the law firm Gowling, Lafleur, Henderson, LLP with expertise in defending advisors and branch managers against their clients and regulators and offers compliance training to both advisors and branch managers for CE credits. For more information, please click here.

http://www.advisor.ca/my-practice/the-w ... trail-2336
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2846
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:58 pm

Screen Shot 2013-03-17 at 1.44.10 PM.png


http://www.casselsbrock.com/files/file/ ... lesKit.pdf

I believe that investment customers who have lost money from someone who called themselves an "advisor" of some kind, should familiarize themselves with this book. It would also be of help if you had an open minded lawyer (or one willing) who would dedicate an hour or two to learning what this book contains. The author is a securities industry lawyer, and is most often seen offering her services to the financial industry, to help get them out of trouble. For this reason, her book can be considered objective and not simple repetition of industry platitudes. Some platitudes (like a strong emphasis on use of the word "advisor" for non-advisor-licensed persons)** are to be expected, but overall the book should be considered useful for victims of professional misconduct or malpractice. ** http://youtu.be/qqLhMw3y9bI

After sitting in court, listening to lawyers and industry-paid "experts" pontificate on how the Know Your Client (KYC) document is the "cornerstone" of the entire financial relationship, I was horrified at how far the law can be utilized as a tool to prevent justice (or truth) from appearing in its rooms.

This book goes beyond the very "minimal" and quite useless (salesperson biased) information usually inputted onto the KYC form. If any so-called expert refers to the KYC as the crucial reference document, it is a good sign they are not well informed. Get the book, study what KYC truly means. KYC is not a simple easy to fill out form. But your investment person who called himself an "advisor" and how helped you to fill out the KYC form will probably use this against you in court. Amazing to see people promising to help serve the public, who "coach"m "guide" or "advise", them through the KYC form, and then use this "coached" form as a tool to use against the client in court. Duped from day one and never even saw it coming. (unless your "advisor" revealed his or her true license category (and compensation bias) to you, (in writing), you were a victim of simple sleight of hand before you even got started into the relationship)

I won't beat it to death, but as one courtroom observer discussed in the hallway outside: "it is like going to someone who called themselves a DOCTOR, for oncology treatments, knodding your head and accepting this DOCTOR's advice about what to do, then learning years later that they may not even have possessed the license required to call themselves a doctor, plus their "advice" was heavily biased towards only drugs or treatments or practices for which he was heavily incentivized.........oops!
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2846
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Sat Mar 16, 2013 6:05 pm

After sitting hours in a courtroom, while industry paid experts hid every essential item related to the truth.......and shared every single written industry platitude ..........I was so disgusted by the display of using ill gotten money from trusting and vulnerable investors, using this money to hire experts and lawyers enough to beat those who trusted them out of justice......I had to post some "more candid" discussion.

Enclosed is an industry expert who goes into better detail about the KYC (Know your Client) form, and why it is insufficient. It is an essential item to understand for those wishing to GET THEIR MONEY BACK, as it forms part of the foundation of "fooling" the public from the first meeting. I will comment further at the end.

Screen Shot 2013-03-16 at 7.02.06 PM.png

[url]http://www.clientinsights.ca/en/libraries/top-expert/seniors-issues/ellen-bessner-managing-compliance-risks-elderly-clients
[/url]
then check out this short video:

Screen Shot 2013-03-16 at 7.04.20 PM.png


http://www.investmentexecutive.com/-/video-27348-litigation-lawyer-know-your-client-and-prove-it-with-notes
(the last minute is of value for customers who may have complaints)

Soooooo......here is the part of the foundation of "fooling" the public from the first meeting. Please try this scenario on for size: "what if the KYC form, say for an elderly customer is difficult to understand, perhaps hard to read, and possibly consists of industry terms, even jargon?"

Would it be fair to say that the person in the room calling himself or herself an "advisor" was the very person who fills out the form, or who "advises" the vulnerable client on how to best fill out the form, what "best" asset mix to have, what "best" balance between growth and income, risk etc, etc? If this sounds reasonable to you then you win, because this is exactly how most, if not all KYC forms get filled out, with "advice", directions, or instructions from the "advisor" or a member of his sales staff. OK? So far so good right?

Now for the potentially fraudulent part.........for those of you ready to fight to gain your money back. "What if the guy (or gal) who called himself (or herself) an "advisor", was never actually licensed as an "advisor"? What if they were fiddling with the rules around the use of that license category and in fact never possessed that license? (check for yourself here http://www.securities-administrators.ca/nrs/nrsearch.aspx?id=850 )

If that is possibly true, then you may have the makings of a fraudulent misrepresentation argument, false pretence, misrepresentation.........

Look at this video now, for the final element in how these sleights of hand are used by the industry to gain your money from you.

Screen Shot 2013-03-16 at 7.22.36 PM.png

http://youtu.be/qqLhMw3y9bI
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2846
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:43 pm

198654_10152113847970304_1520367938_n.jpg
This "summary of experiences" came to me from someone who has walked a fair distance down the path of demanding that they be compensated for abuse by so-called financial professionals. I am impressed to see actions taking place, people standing up and no longer accepting this type of abuse. Now if we could get the justice system onto a level playing field between billion dollar corporations and their victims..............



Getting Your Money Back

Lessons Learned:

It will take 2- 3 years to resolve your claim.

Focus on one strategy or task when you don’t know what to do.

There are people fighting for investor rights in Canada. Draw your inspiration and expertise from them.

Find a knowledgeable expert to review your claim before seeking expensive legal advice.

Negotiate a flat rate for each service if possible.

You will see statistics of complaint to IIROC and OBSI and know that your voice was counted.

The regulatory bodies increase attention on poor investment vehicles if investors complain about them.

OBSI mediation service will take a long time, and isn’t binding. But they will argue for you for free.

List each component of your claim as factually as possible, without inference and inflammatory language. Deliver them in a calm manner.

It will take filing a claim before anyone will take your complaint seriously, but use it as a last resort.

Know all aspects of your claim yourself. It will take hours.

The cost of being represented at small claims (25K) and a fast track trial (3 days-100K) will be equal or exceed your losses.

IIROC’s Arbitration may be faster and cheaper than going to court.

Convince the judge, not the opposition, that you are right.

Return to the facts as they give you distractors.

Focus on your demeanor. Belligerence and aggression will not impress the judge. Concentrating on your demeanor will keep your emotions in check and keep the focus on your message. It inhibits their defenses and makes you less emotional and in control.

You are not only negotiating a settlement with the firm. You are also negotiating with an insurance company. There are restrictions as to what they can offer and when. Research their approach and techniques for settlement.

Back up your damages with paper evidence and a referenced rationale for your calculations.

Rely on paper evidence, regulations, statutes and case law to back up your complaint.

Put everything in a binder and use coloured tabs for the sections to find documents quickly. You must be able to find evidence quickly. Quote directly from the documents. An organized approach with lots of evidence to lead gives you credibility and shows you are serious about pursuing justice.

They can argue how to interpret law, contracts, and suitability. They can’t argue ethics and morality. They can’t argue that you shouldn’t have trusted them without compromising their integrity.

Your complaint will be repeated in their hallways and in their offices. Some of them won’t like that you complained and will change some of their policies. You can’t measure how many people in the future will not be abused because you complained.

You can’t ever know or measure the difference your complaint will make.

You will become a stronger person and your knowledge will help others.

Lastly, getting your money back will not satisfy you. Your satisfaction will come from standing up for yourself and the way you conduct yourself, from knowing what they did was wrong and that you took them as far as you could. For everyone that is different. Take pride in any action you take against them.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2846
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:22 pm

Screen Shot 2013-03-04 at 10.15.57 AM.png


One of the neatest tricks of the investment trade, the foundation if you will, is the fooling and misrepresenting to the public that the correspondence course commission salesperson is a trusted financial "advisor".

THEN........

Once that ruse is accomplished, customers hand over their trust and vulnerability, while reducing their level of suspicion. Viola! You may find that some of these trusted "advisors" live up to their actual license category, (which is NOT as an "advisor:)

Further helping them along(to skin you of your money), as I prepare to testify in court tomorrow, is the client objectives (income, growth, short term, long term, high risk, low risk etc).

In my experience, when trusting clients approach someone posing as a trusted professional, perhaps in an institution which may have a reputation for trust (banks?) they tend to "follow" their advice and direction.

Therefore, when filling out the client objectives, they nod their heads and agree, (why? see red below) just like you and I do when our doctor tells us what to do at times when we are really and truly lost. Every had that feeling of being lost?

"The typical risk questionnaire asks people really silly questions. The questionnaires are really stupid. Unfortunately investors think they must answer them. If you ask someone, 'How many stars do you think there are in the heavens?,' they have no idea — but they'll probably still answer the question." – Behavioural Finance guru Meir Statman Source: M. Noble, Building a better risk profile, Advisor.ca , March, 2009 [His first piece of advice to advisors is this: Realize most investors have a much lower risk tolerance than they may let on. Statman's research has determined that investor risk tolerance is, on average, extremely low

Sooooo, the end result is that they guy (sorry gals, I am old school when writing) who is fooling you into a false belief that he is a trusted "advisor", is the very same guy who is "helping " to advise you while filling in the account objectives.......and probably filling them in himself, simply asking for your signature. Is that a dual professional failure?

I think so. I am testifying in court, where a mid 90 year old gentlemen is up against an investment firm, and of course, said investment firm is hanging the elderly gent with the KYC (know your client form) that was filled out by the guy who played the false pretense game.............hmmmm There is something criminal about that. Good thing us investment folks get to "regulate" ourselves or some would be in jail:)

So, anyway, all that buildup and story to give you this court precedent which you should be using to help get your money back:

Suitability jurisprudence
(c) Suitability obligation
¶ 13
The jurisprudence on the "suitability" obligation of a registrant to determine whether an investment is appropriate for a client often includes reference to the Alberta Securities Commission (“ASC”) decision in Re Lamoureux [2001] A.S.C.D. No. 613. The decision sets out applicable principles that should guide this panel’s decision and the following lengthy extract (at Part V (B) (3) (d)) is apt:

“The obligation to ensure that recommendations are suitable or appropriate for the client rests solely with the registrant. This responsibility cannot be substituted, avoided or transferred to the client, even by obtaining from the client an acknowledgment that they are aware of the negative material factors or risks associated with the particular investment.

The obligation on a registrant to ensure that each investment recommended to a client is suitable is a particularly important protection for those clients whose investment experience and sophistication may be insufficient to enable them to fully recognize or assess the risks inherent in an investment. As noted below, disclosure to the client of the negative material factors of an investment, however important, is not necessarily relevant to a suitability determination and cannot replace a registrant’s obligation to assess suitability. Acknowledgment on the part of an investor of awareness of the material negative factors or risk does not convert an unsuitable investment into a suitable one. http://docs.iiroc.ca/DisplayDocument.as ... anguage=en

(if the guy sells you crap, GET YOUR MONEY BACK. If his firm tells you your objectives allowed high risk, point out that their "phoney" non-licensed "advisor" helped you fill out the form, so it is tainted..........and get your money back. Seriously, do not take this money manipulation game sitting down. )

You can take this one all the way to a criminal charge (privately filed) if you are convinced that you have been defrauded or victimized by false pretences. You will be the first, but what the heck. You have the right if they have done wrong.

http://youtu.be/qqLhMw3y9bI
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2846
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:21 pm

Here is a media release with links to a recent U of T study about the effects of commissions or conflicts of interest on which mutual funds your "advisor" advises for you........GET YOUR MONEY BACK if you have been victimized by a) a person misrepresenting the "advisor" title

and

b) a person who sells you the most expensive products for his or her own good and not yours.

see video here for further background to (a) above http://youtu.be/qqLhMw3y9bI
Screen Shot 2013-03-13 at 5.12.41 PM.png


Broker fees from mutual funds affect advice; predict worse performance, new study says.

Broker fees from mutual funds affect advice; predict worse performance, new study says.
Toronto – Brokers are supposed to recommend investments that are in the best interests of their clients.

But a study published in the February 2013 issue of the Journal of Finance has found that mutual funds offering higher broker fees attract the most investments, especially when the broker is not affiliated with the mutual fund company. Every additional dollar paid to a broker corresponds with another six dollars invested into the fund, and another fourteen dollars if the broker is an unaffiliated third party whose compensation depends exclusively on sales commissions.

It also found these payments are linked to lower investment performance, especially when the fees come from one-time sales loads rather than ongoing payments.

It is the first such study to explicitly show how broker fees affect Investments Into funds and how they subsequently perform.

The freedom mutual fund companies have to decide how to compensate brokers has “real consequences” for the brokers’ clients, the paper says. The implication, it adds, is there’s a strong case for clearly showing customers how much their broker receives from their investment recommendations.

Brokers are typically compensated in two ways. If the fund is a front-end load, the investor pays a one-time charge, taken immediately off the top of their initial investment as a predetermined percentage. The broker receives the bulk of that charge.

“For the most part, investors are completely unaware,” how much of the load goes to their broker, says Susan Christoffersen, a professor of finance at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, who co-wrote the study with Richard Evans of the University of Virginia, and the University of Pennsylvania’s David Musto. “If it’s revealed, it would be in the statement of additional information or the details of a prospectus.”

Investors may also not realize how much their brokers continue to receive out of their investments, via ongoing "trailer fees." These fees vary but in Canada make up about 40% of the management expense ratio, or MER.

The study looked at data on the performance and asset flows of U.S. mutual funds between 1993 and 2009 and related these with the fees paid to brokers disclosed in N-SAR filings to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The requirement for these filings arose directly out of regulators’ concerns of conflicts of interest and the effect of broker fees on the growth and size of mutual funds.

Read the entire study online at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1393289

For the latest thinking on business, management and economics from the Rotman School of Management, visit http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/FacultyAn ... nking.aspx.

The Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto is redesigning business education for the 21st century with a curriculum based on Integrative Thinking. Located in the world’s most diverse city, the Rotman School fosters a new way to think that enables the design of creative business solutions. The School is currently raising $200 million to ensure Canada has the world-class business school it deserves. For more information, visit http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca.

-30-

For more information:

Ken McGuffin
Manager, Media Relations
Rotman School of Management
University of Toronto
Voice 416.946.3818
E-mail mcguffin@rotman.utoronto.ca

http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/Connect/MediaCentre/NewsReleases/20130128.aspx
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2846
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:24 am

Screen Shot 2013-03-11 at 10.21.01 AM.png


(c) Suitability obligation
¶ 13

The jurisprudence on the “suitability” obligation of a registrant to determine whether an investment is appropriate for a client often includes reference to the Alberta Securities Commission (“ASC”) decision in Re Lamoureux [2001] A.S.C.D. No. 613. The decision sets out applicable principles that should guide this panel’s decision and the following lengthy extract (at Part V (B) (3) (d)) is apt:

“The obligation to ensure that recommendations are suitable or appropriate for the client rests solely with the registrant. This responsibility cannot be substituted, avoided or transferred to the client, even by obtaining from the client an acknowledgment that they are aware of the negative material factors or risks associated with the particular investment.

The obligation on a registrant to ensure that each investment recommended to a client is suitable is a particularly important protection for those clients whose investment experience and sophistication may be insufficient to enable them to fully recognize or assess the risks inherent in an investment. As noted below, disclosure to the client of the negative material factors of an investment, however important, is not necessarily relevant to a suitability determination and cannot replace a registrant’s obligation to assess suitability. Acknowledgment on the part of an investor of awareness of the material negative factors or risk does not convert an unsuitable investment into a suitable one.


http://docs.iiroc.ca/DisplayDocument.aspx?DocumentID=E1746D66C38F419E9F5F7810E8AF4C13&Language=en
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2846
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:59 pm

Screen Shot 2013-03-08 at 8.36.32 PM.png


too funny!

A long list of Canadian sellers/dispensers of investment products/"advice"........all lining up to poke at industry proposals to protect investors better........a mandatory best interest standard...........which used to exist as little as ten years ago, hmmmm. At least all the training manuals in the industry said it existed.

Read up on how your very own financial "advisor" is lobbying in the background to not have to place your interests ahead of their own.........some of them take eight or nine pages of self serving bullshit to spit out how it would not be good if they had to put their clients interest first.........priceless!!

Oh, and by the way, GET YOUR MONEY BACK from people like this.
http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/en/38075.htm

then view this video and learn a bit more of the bait and switch game you are a victim of........ http://youtu.be/qqLhMw3y9bI

Screen Shot 2013-03-04 at 10.15.57 AM.png
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2846
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:36 pm

If you are truly SERIOUS about getting your money back, then this post might be essential reading for you to understand better the roles/duties of your "advisor"

see this post in the "fiduciary" topic of this forum

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187#p3532


for a very well done expose related to the topic of advisors/salespersons

it is well worth it
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2846
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:35 pm

Screen Shot 2013-02-19 at 2.31.00 PM.png


The B.C. Securities Commission has proposed legislative changes that, if implemented, will radically change the way private securities are sold in B.C. and dramatically improve investor protection.

The proposed changes would remove exemptions in the B.C. Securities Act that permit unregistered people to sell securities without filing a prospectus with the commission.

The commission says it is proposing these changes because:

Promoters and sales agents who are relying on exemptions are not complying with investor protection conditions.

• Investors would be better protected if they purchased these sorts of securities through registered brokers.

• The impact on raising capital would be negligible.

Under current rules, exemptions from registration and prospectus requirements are available to:

• Companies that sell securities to accredited investors
(investors who meet certain net worth and income thresholds).

Companies that sell securities to family, friends and business associates.

Companies that sell securities through an offering memorandum and get investors to sign a statement acknowledging the investment is risky and they could lose all their money.

Companies that sell securities to investors in minimum amounts of $150,000.

Persons that sell securities of mortgage investment entities, mainly mortgage investment corporations, commonly known as “MICs”.

Sales of these sorts of securities have been the source of ongoing regulatory problems and widespread investors losses. This column has cited dozens of such cases and repeatedly pressed for reform.

The main problem is that most of the people who sell exempt securities — because they are not registered — are not regulated, have no minimum educational standards and no obligation to ensure that the investment is suitable for the purchaser.

Also, these sorts of securities are often investments in start-up or development companies, which are inherently risky.

Adding to the risk is the fact that most of these securities do not trade on public markets and are, in fact, subject to severe resale restrictions. That means that, if the investment starts to fail, investors cannot bail out.

To sell these investments, promoters usually pay their sales agents extra high sales commissions, which encourage them to recommend the investments even though they are technically not permitted to render advice.

If anything goes wrong, investors often have little or no recourse, as the sales person is usually not registered with a dealer that is required to meet minimum insurance and capital requirements.

In many cases, the sale of exempt securities has resulted horrendous investor losses.

For example, investments in Vancouver-based Freedom Investment Club, which invested heavily in development property in Alberta, were sold by unregistered sales people by way of offering memorandum. BCSC enforcement staff have alleged that FIC’s two principal promoters defrauded investors. Investors are facing $50 million in losses.

Investors in Horizon FX Limited Partnership, which invested in foreign exchange currency contracts, similarly lost $25 million and its principal promoter was banned from the B.C. securities market.

This problem was not unique to B.C. It extended to other provinces that provided similar exemptions.

In 2009, the Canadian Securities Administrators (the umbrella organization for provincial regulators) passed a national policy that restricts the sale of exempt securities to a new category of registrant called exempt market dealers.

These brokers specialize in selling exempt products but are subject to essentially the same rules as ordinary brokers, including a requirement that they ensure the investment is suitable for the purchaser.

However, the Western provinces and territories opted out because they were concerned about the possible dampening effect on capital formation.

The B.C. commission now says that, after studying the national policy for the past three years, it has determined that:

• Revoking the exemptions would have negligible impact on raising capital.

• Private enterprises and mortgage investment entities do not rely significantly on this distribution channel for financing. Only about one per cent of the capital raised would be affected by the new rules.

• There has been significant non-compliance with the exemptions. Compliance reviews showed that 74 per cent of issuers who claimed exemptions failed to provide investors with the required risk disclosure.

Non-compliance among mortgage investment entities reached 90 per cent.

• Investors are most vulnerable to high-risk investments sold in the private placement market and would be better protected if they purchased securities from a registered dealer, who would be required to ensure the investment was suitable for the investor.

The proposed rule changes will undoubtedly be challenged by many securities promoters and their lawyers, who have long held that removal of these exemptions would add unnecessary expense and impede capital formation.

Interested parties have until Feb. 4 to submit comments to the commission.

dbaines@vancouversun.com

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Da ... z2LNnlKKvL
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2846
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:06 am

Screen Shot 2013-02-18 at 10.04.51 AM.png
On a quiet holiday monday morning, I was being inundated with ads containing pitches for "professional" wealth management. Along with this came some new initials to prove just how professional these people were.........

The new one to me was the letters CSWP and the promoter claimed they stood for Chartered Strategic Wealth Professional. Now I have seen everything.

I won't bore you with the myriad of letters that salespeople use to misdirect the public from the fact that they are product sellers, and not professional "advisors" as many claim.......I personally attained the CFP, CIM, FCSI and Associate Portfolio Manager designation and none of it matters.

What matters is whether or not the salesperson is incentivized (and willing to fall for those incentives) to harm the interests of the customer for a greater commission. All else is window dressing in my experience. I worked 20 years in the industry, travelled the world to the conventions and sales conferences and met enough within the industry to know.

Less than 20% of those in the industry will say NO to harming their clients in my experience. That is also backed up in cash and in the hard numbers of industry sales statistics. Sad.

So whenever you run across a person claiming to be some kind of wealth management professional, with a myriad of unexplained initials behind their name, rest assured, that all these courses are usually kitchen table correspondence courses, sold by industry education outfits. Not quite in a "diploma mill" level, but some are coming awfully close.

They mostly attempt to portray one thing, which I thing important. They try to portray that the commission salesperson, who is incentivized to perhaps harm your interests if need be, for a greater commission, ..........to portray that person as some kind of wealth service professional. They portray a need to do ANYTHING in order to NOT tell the customer what they actually are, and how they are paid. This is a strong element of fraud, or misrepresentation or other abuses of the relationship.

This also is one of the key reasons why customers who refuse to be abused and misled in this way are GETTING THEIR MONEY BACK. Simply do some homework, hire a lawyer, have your lawyer call me or another industry watchdog (not a regulator paid by the industry:)

I have even seen investors who cannot afford a lawyer, study up a bit, take their "advisor" to small claims court, and obtain a settlement that way. None of this is public information due to confidentiality agreements, but I am watching it unfold for those who are aware.

see video at http://youtu.be/cIplp222zVE for a shorter learning experience on how the misrepresentation game works against you......and ironically, how these efforts to mislead investors can be used against the very people who are doing the misleading.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2846
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:14 pm

373980_401553049910144_827053989_n.jpg
373980_401553049910144_827053989_n.jpg (12.16 KiB) Viewed 12626 times
Part of a long dialogue about investment "advisor" misrepresentation.

This portion of a conversation is part of what is helping abused investment customers across Canada (and some in the US as well) to argue successfully and gain their money back from investment brokers.

This information will not be newsworthy until gag orders and confidentiality agreements placed upon victims are no longer standard practice. Such gag orders allow financial institutions to abuse each and every member of the population, one at a time, and when those one-in-one-thousand individuals strong enough to fight back, get compensated, the compensation is hidden from the next 1000 victims. Thus the financial industry just gets to harm investors and get away 99.99% of the time "scott-free".

Here from my own experience is information about some of those abuses, which are being used in courtrooms recently to beat these some of these institutions. I hope there is something in here that can help others as well.

=======


In my opinion it is not "sufficient" to simply show or say that "he assured me………" (referring to the "advice" given by the "advisor")

Anyone can say that and it then brings up a chance for a little "he said/she said" debate in the judges head.

If it were me, I would add:

Your honour, I listened to the advice given to me by this person and I always believe when asking advice from a professional, I should be smart enough to take that advice, knowing that this person knows far more about the subject that I do………….Now, in hindsight, I find that there were some things this person did not tell me with enough honesty for me to place this trust in him. Namely:

1) that this person who claimed to be an advisor and a professional, was not even licensed as an advisor, contrary to the Securities Act
2) That rather than being an advisory professional as her and her firm's web site led me to believe, they provide nothing but commission selling of investment products
3) that despite me being led to believe that the advice delivered to me being in my best interests, it turns out that not only do they NO LONGER HAVE TO GIVE ADVICE THAT IS IN MY INTERESTS (suitable only) but that the commission structures and mutual fund choices offered to me show that the salesperson earns greater commissions by actually harming my interests.
4) at no time was I warned by this salesperson or this firm that they would withhold such essential information from me, and that they might have an interest in harming me financially, while promising me the opposite


I could go on another item or two, but you get the point………the point is not to just "turn over" all blame and responsibility to him and assume none for protecting yourself…………..SHOW him exactly how you were MISLED, by their promises, to make the mistake of putting 100% confidence and trust in what he told you to do…… sure it may have been your mistake in judgement...with the benefit of hindsight......but her fraud and deceit with her firm backing her up and her full intention to harm you for more commissions.


larry
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2846
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:51 pm

Screen Shot 2012-11-29 at 7.51.14 PM.png
Here is an IIROC disciplinary notice (partial for brevity) of note:

Visit IIROC to see the notice in it's entirety.
http://www.iiroc.ca/Documents/2012/3cb4 ... 054_en.pdf

INVESTMENT INDUSTRY REGULATORY ORGANIZATION OF CANADA In the matter of:

The Dealer Member Rules of the
Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada
and

Paul Christopher Darrigo

NOTICE OF HEARING
TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Part 10 of Dealer Member Rule 20 and Section 1.9 of Schedule C.1 to Transition Rule No.1 of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (“IIROC”), a set date hearing will be held before a hearing panel of IIROC (“Hearing Panel”) on Wednesday, October 31, 2012 at IIROC British Columbia Room, 121 King Street West, 20th Floor, Toronto, Ontario at 10am, or as soon thereafter as the hearing can be heard.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 6.2 of IIROC’s Dealer Member Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules of Practice and Procedure”), that the hearing shall be designated on the:

The Standard Track
The Complex Track

THE PURPOSE OF THE HEARING is to determine whether Paul Christopher Darrigo (“Darrigo” or the “Respondent”) has committed the following contraventions that are alleged by the staff of IIROC (“Staff”):
1. Between October 2009 and January 2011, Darrigo acted against his clients’ interest by effecting mutual fund transactions that triggered unnecessary deferred sales charges to his clients and undue commissions to himself, contrary to IIROC Dealer Member 1300.1(o).

end of partial notice here===========================================

It might be of interest to note that often 80% to 100% of mutual funds sold in Canada are charged the sales option called the DSC (deferred sales charge), DESPITE there being many cheaper alternatives that could arguably serve the interests of the customer better.

The unfortunate part of this is that most mutual funds are sold by a person on a commission, and therein lay the problem. Rather than meet the higher "suitability" standard, they (commission salesperson) often choose to "justify" the option that is in their best interests, rather than that of the client. (suitability requirement is like an "edible" or "drinkable" standard, ie, "the water coming out of that sewage plant is drinkable, yes" )

I would hope that the legal profession (keywords, IIROC, suit, recourse, disciplinary, fired, DSC,) will benefit from these notices, and bring improved honesty, fair play and good faith to the investment industry.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2846
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Click here to view forums

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron