GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Index of forum topics, talk to us.

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:52 am

Screen Shot 2012-11-28 at 9.50.52 AM.png


Watch & Learn Terrific 10 minute BNN video What retail investors need to know about their financial advisers http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/what-retail-investors-need-to-know-about-%20their-financial-advisers-11-22-12-3-10-pm/jvojhfzu?from=

Thanks to Ken at http://www.canadianfundwatch.com for this post

expert
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:49 pm

Screen Shot 2012-11-13 at 9.43.23 PM.png


Guest column: Whose responsibility is suitability?

Advisors and their firms should avoid the growing trend of blaming clients if it is their own processes that are at fault

By Harold Geller, John Hollander | May 2012

At the core of the relationship between financial advisors and their clients is the assessment of the client's financial situation by the advisor - an investigation intended to match the client's financial goals with the planning and financial products recommended by the advisor. In other words, what financial choices are suitable for the client, given his or her particular situation?

It sounds straightforward. But, as most advisors know, the "know your client" process can be fraught with peril if it is not conducted and documented thoroughly. Witness the rising number of lawsuits against advisors and their firms to recover financial losses. These lawsuits almost always focus on the suitability issue, with even the most sophisticated plaintiffs alleging that they were advised to make financial decisions that were unsuitable for them, leading to catastrophic losses.

So, it's very much in the interest of advisors and their firms to ensure that they are fully aware of their obligations in this regard. Indeed, the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada and the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada have established "know your client," "know your product" and "suitability" as the bedrock of the client/advisor relationship.

In our experience, problems often arise because some advisors may not have informed themselves as fully as they should have about their clients' situations (KYC), the features and details of the investments they have recommended (KYP) and how those two investigations should be applied to the client's situation (suitability).

But even if all of these steps have been taken, the advisor is still at high risk for a ruling of liability if he or she has failed to document the suitability process fully. This type of failure leaves advisors and their firms struggling to prove what is their most common defense - that the client made properly informed choices.
Indeed, it is typical for defendant advisors and firms in civil claims and disciplinary hearings to place the blame for client losses on their clients. These defendants often point to the "sophistication" of the client and the apparent understanding by the client as proof that the client was fully aware of his or her investment choices. The client's sophistication in employment, business experience or education is often mistaken for investment knowledge. So is the client's history of giving approval of recommendations.
So, who is responsible? And for what?

Clearly, the advisor and the dealer jointly bear the responsibility to recommend an appropriate match between the product and the client. Despite widespread investment industry misunderstanding to the contrary, suitability analysis is never the responsibility of the client. IIROC Rule 1300.1(q) requires that both dealer and advisor, "when recommending to a customer the purchase, sale, exchange or holding of any security, shall use due diligence to ensure that the recommendation is suitable for such customer." MFDA Rule 2.2.1 is similar. Nowhere is this obligation for ensuring suitability imposed on the client - even in the case of unsolicited orders.

This debate effectively ended in Canada when the Alberta Securities Commission declared (in Re Lamoureux, 2002) that the responsibility for ensuring suitability rests solely on advisors and dealers: "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." This decision has been adopted extensively, including in the decision of the Ontario Securities Commission in Re Daubney, 2008, and that of IIROC in Re Gareau, 2011.

Advisors and their firms have every right to protect themselves from a liability finding by clearly establishing that they have met the suitability standard. The best way to do that is to be thorough in carrying out the suitability obligation and by fully documenting that process. It is this process, not the result, that advisors must answer for. Indeed, it can be argued that the intentional denial of a regulatory obligation, such as the suitability obligation, is itself a breach of both the regulation and the civil duty of care owed to the client.

When looking for evidence to support the conduct of the advisor, firms are well advised to avoid blaming the client, as is the current trend. Advisors and dealers promote their skills and assessment processes to their clients. When an advisor error is alleged, the advisors and dealers should do one of two things: either they should show how they complied with suitability standards or they should own up to their responsibilities. Failing that, further regulatory and judicial sanctions against the advisor and his or her firm are necessary to serve as a general deterrent against these types of failures. IE

Harold Geller and John Hollander are senior associates with Doucet McBride LLP. This commentary is not intended as legal advice.

http://www.investmentexecutive.com/-/gu ... =%2Fsearch
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:33 pm

FOUR STEPS TO INVESTMENT "ADVISOR" MISREPRESENTATION, MISCONDUCT, AND MALPRACTICE

(The trick of the trade that allows 150,000 commission salespersons, licensed today in the registration category of "dealing representative" (formerly salesperson license category) but misrepresenting themselves to the public as professional "advisors", (advisers?)

FIRST

The Law and rules on disclosure of license category:

From the BCSC Securities Act (link 1) comes this;

Persons who must be registered
34  A person must not
(a) trade in a security or exchange contract,
(b) act as an adviser,
(c) act as an investment fund manager, or
(d) act as an underwriter,
unless the person is registered in accordance with the regulations and in the category prescribed for the purpose of the activity.
link 1
http://www.bcsc.bc.ca/securitieslaw.aspx

BC Securities Act found on this web page

===================================================

Representations prohibited
50  (1) A person, while engaging in investor relations activities or with the intention of effecting a trade in a security, must not do any of the following:

(d) make a statement that the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, is a misrepresentation;
engage in an unfair practice.

=====================

Representation or holding out of registration
54  (1) A person must not represent that the person is registered under this Act unless
(a) the representation is true, and
(b) in making the representation, the person specifies the person's category of registration under this Act.
A person must not make a statement about something that a reasonable investor would consider important in deciding whether to enter or maintain a trading or advising relationship with the person if the statement is untrue or omits information necessary to prevent the statement from being false or misleading in the circumstances in which it is made.

===========================


57  A person must not, directly or indirectly, engage in or participate in conduct relating to securities or exchange contracts if the person knows, or reasonably should know, that the conduct
(a) results in or contributes to a misleading appearance of trading activity in, or an artificial price for, a security or exchange contract, or
perpetrates a fraud on any person.


===========================







SECOND

Name Removed, and his firm, represented his license to the public as that of an “advisor”, which is NOT his actual license category today and was not his license category at the time. His license category then and now is ______________ as stated in the CSA National Registration Search
http://www.securities-administrators.ca/nrs/nrsearch.aspx?id=850

This is a violation of Sections 50, 54, 57, and perhaps section 34 of the Securities Act of the Province of British Columbia, found here: http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96418_01

Using the title of “advisor” instead of _________ misrepresents the true nature of the relationship: a salesperson or dealer representative. The customer believes they are receiving investment advice in their best interest. This misrepresentation is often used to build trust with the customers and sell them investments that benefit the salesmen and firms through higher commissions and fees.

As is aptly put in a Financial Post article: "Anything else is fraud, because the seller is delivering a service different from what the consumer thinks he or she is buying. " Edward Waitzer, Financial Post · Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2011) (Mr. Waitzer is a Bay Street Lawyer and former Securities Commission chair, and this quote ( by another person) appeared in his article.

Full article found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12XJgKPUI4cPQkkDVNO3IUnOpEXVDifbF4SqZz3uVufY/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1%20...#bookmark=id.e2caf9e71a16
Waitzer

THIRD

The misrepresentations, and advertising and promotional promises of many investment salespersons and their respective firms, combine to allow salespersons to sell products and services which often enrich the salesperson and the firm, while not disclosing to the customer that those products and services may be chosen to best benefit the firm and the salesperson, and may in fact be chosen despite harms, risks, or alternate choices which the customer which would be better or safer for the customer.......which are not disclosed to the customer.

ie,. highest commission paying choice of “safe growth” investment

ie,. choice of unsuitable investments

perhaps other items not disclosed to this author












FOURTH



Below are selected paragraphs from a legal case cited as Markarian V CIBC World Markets, in which the judge’s comments touched on some of the various industry misrepresentations in his judgement.
(although many of the comments relate to the "misleading title in this case of VICE PRESIDENT, RETIREMENT SPECIALIST, etc, I consider the concept of misrepresentation to equally apply in principle to persons who are registered as "salesperson" or "dealing representative" who inflate their own title up to "advisor" or "adviser" for the same or similar purposes of misrepresentation)


http://www.investorvoice.ca/Cases/Investor/Markarian/Markarian_v_CIBCWorldMarketsInc.htm

List of select comments by Quebec Superior Court
District of Montreal
The Honorable Jean-Pierre Senécal, J.S.C.

(C) MISLEADING TITLES

¶ 263 The defendant attributed to Migirdic fake titles, i.e. "vice-president" and "vice-president and director", in addition to letting him use the title "specialist in retirement investments". Those titles were false representations that misled the plaintiffs, hid reality from them, disinformed them, comforted them in their confidence in Migirdic, reduced their distrust, and contributed to Migirdic's fraud. The defendant committed a fault in terms of its obligation to inform and advise, in addition to misleading the plaintiffs.


¶ 267 The problem is that clients do not know that these titles are simply marketing tools, i.e. a means to convince them that they have an excellent representative, and recognition for the volume of commissions. Clients therefore believe they have a "very special" and "eminently acknowledged" representative when the representative has the title of "vice-president" or "vice-president and director". That was what Mr. Markarian in fact believed, as he testified. Richard Papazian, another witness (and also a victim) thought the same thing. So the titles create a false feeling of trust, comfort and prestige, the role of which is not trivial in the commission of fraud.

¶ 268 The plaintiffs were the victims of these false representations by the defendant in their regard.

¶ 273 As for the title "specialist in retirement investments" or "retirement specialist", it was not a title given Migirdic by the defendant, but the defendant authorized him to use it (among others on his business cards). Once again, it was a way to instill trust in retirees and prompt them to rely on their representative in all confidence. In actuality, the title meant nothing more than that Migirdic had many retired clients, which did not make him more competent in that area and also did not make him a better representative for those people (much to the contrary, Migirdic exploited their greater vulnerability).

ADDENDUM OF RELATED MATERIAL

Fair dealing with clients
14 (1)  A registrant must deal fairly, honestly and in good faith with the clients of the registrant.
(2)  A registered
(a) dealing representative, or
(b) advising representative,
of a dealer or adviser must deal fairly, honestly and in good faith with the clients of the dealer or adviser
.
[am. B.C. Reg. 226/2009, Sch. C, s. 2.]

This section (above) is from the BC Securities Commission Securities Act
SECURITIES RULES
[includes amendments up to B.C. Reg. 104/2010, September 28, 2010]section found on their web site.

http://www.bcsc.bc.ca/securitieslaw.aspx

“In the opinion of myself, Larry Elford, the defendant in this case, was legally licensed in the category that was used pre-2009, namely the category of “salesperson”.
Although this license and registration category has since (Sept 2009) been altered from “salesperson” to the new name of “dealing representative”, it seems apparent that the defendant has been claiming to be registered as an “advising representative” by referring to himself as an “advisor”.


These violations constitute what can roughly be termed a “bait and switch”, whereby an investment customer is lured into action with the promise of a “trusted, licensed and qualified” investment professional.

Then the switch comes as the customer is unwittingly subjected to the services of a commission salesperson, who may not even carry a duty to place the interests of the customer first and foremost. (see image below of suitability and priority of customer interests from FIDUCIARY ROUNDTABLE 2011, Industry stakeholders conference) (more data available on this topic)

Screen%20shot%202011-08-11%20at%2012.10.02%20PM.png

click to enlarge image

From the BCSC web site and document http://www.bcsc.bc.ca/uploadedFiles/securitieslaw/policy3/NI%2031-103%20Consolidated%20Version%20Feb%2028%202012.pdf

Comes this document title: National Instrument 31-103
Registration Requirements, Exemptions and Ongoing Registrant Obligations


Which contains this section on the requirements to call oneself an "advisor" or "advising representative"
3.11 Portfolio manager – advising representative
An advising representative of a portfolio manager must not act as an adviser on behalf of the portfolio manager unless any of the following apply:
(a) the individual has earned a CFA Charter and has gained 12 months of relevant investment management experience in the 36-month period before applying for registration;
(b) the individual has received the Canadian Investment Manager designation and has gained 48 months of relevant investment management experience, 12 months of which was gained in the 36-month period before applying for registration.

Further, this communication from the BCSC to myself after making an enquiry to them on the topic of misrepresentation:


Dear Mr Elford,

Thank you for your message.

With regards to your questions and comments, you are quite right in that the term "advisor" on its own and used loosely, would be inappropriate for a dealing representative to use without having the educational requirements and experience to be registered as an advising representative.

If you are certain that an individual is holding themselves out inappropriately, please feel free to contact the appropriate securities commission or self regulatory body (Mutual fund Dealers Association or Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada ) through our related links available on our website at: http://www.bcsc.bc.ca our email is inquiries@bcsc.bc.ca We also have a helpful link on our website called Invest-right , which members of the public can use to assist themselves with their investing.

Thank you,


Kent Waterfield
Senior Registration Administrator
Registration & Compliance Branch
Capital Markets Regulation

British Columbia Securities Commission

=================================================

“Advisor ” Titles confuse and mislead : In most cases, a broker-dealer rep is a sales rep, not an
adviser. The broker-dealer rep does not get paid to give advice and is not licensed to provide
advice, and hence is not an “adviser.” Such reps get paid when they sell a product; thus they are
salespeople. It seems clear that when broker-dealers refer to their salespeople as “financial
advisers” or “financial counselors” or “financial consultants,” their intent is to mislead the public
as to the true purpose of their reps.
No wonder the public is confused. It seems pretty clear that
the public would be less confused if the rep's title were “financial services sales representative”
or “Vice president of sales.” With this same approach, other industries could use titles such as
“used-car adviser,” “carpet counselor” or “door-to-door consultant.” These are of course all
salespeople, and the public recognizes them as such. Most people see warning lights in their
minds when they deal with salespeople. It is an instinctive self-defense mechanism to be
sceptical of what the salesperson is saying, to shop around with other vendors and to get second
opinions. However, when salespeople are called - and viewed as - “advisers,” the public can be
led into thinking they are being told what is best for them. In fact, in a commission-driven
transaction (with only the suitability rues in play), the client often comes out on the short end of
the “conflict- of- interest” stick. - contributed from http://www.canadianfundwatch.com

http://www.canadianfundwatch.com/files/news-201204.pdf
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:31 am

Things that make you go hmmmmm.....

images.jpeg
images.jpeg (6.18 KiB) Viewed 14147 times



Have you ever wondered how the investment industry in Canada is able to get away with an XL-Foods type of “oops”, seemingly over and over without repercussion?

Here are a few facts about investment protections that make you wonder.

1. All regulators in the investment industry, self regulators and government regulators, are paid directly from the investment industry itself, and not from the government.

While some meat inspectors may earn just over $100,000, investment regulators top out at just over $700,000. (Ontario and Alberta Securities Commissions)

2. When the food industry runs into a problem, the product is recalled, at a loss to the processor, and disposed of.

When the investment industry runs into a problem, they pass the “problem” into the accounts of trusting and vulnerable Canadians.

(They do this with the assist of 150,000 commission salespersons, who are licensed as “dealing representatives” and posing to the public as being persons who are licensed in the category of “advisor”.)

3. When the food industry has product that they know does not meet our laws or standards, they do not apply for “exemption” to the law in order to sell it to the public.

The investment industry in Canada has received thousands of exemptions to the Securities Act in each province, to allow toxic, faulty or self serving investment products or advice into the financial food chain.

4. The food industry has caused hundreds of cases of illness and several deaths.

The investment industry has caused hundred of billions in damages (ABCP $35 billion, exempt market products $1.5 billion, to name just TWO) and resulted in the suicide of several Canadian victims. (more victim suicides than actual prosecutions) http://youtu.be/aNh5laKO22o

5. When the food industry finds tainted or spoiled product, it is usually recalled destroyed.

When the investment industry finds tainted or spoiled product, it is usually placed into the investment accounts of unsuspecting customers, those most vulnerable, the elderly, and various government agencies.

6. If food tampering or fraud were discovered and the police called, they would likely investigate and bring the criminal code of Canada into play.

If investment tampering or fraud is discovered and the police called, they will likely never open up the criminal code of Canada, and will instead refer cases directly to persons paid by the investment industry. (investment industry “self regulates”)

7. People paid by the food inspection and regulatory agency do not sit on joint management committees of our largest and most respected police agencies.

Industry paid self regulators and provincial counterparts sit on joint management committees of the RCMP IMET, “helping” them on Canada’s largest economic crimes investigations. (even those where the investment regulator has "participated" in the abuse of the public by granted exemption.... see http://www.investoradvocates.ca/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=79

8. When food inspectors are found to have tainted product to reach consumers, there is usually considerable public and media outcry, possibly even inquiry, until a full explanation is found and solved.

When the securities commissions in Canada are granting permission to violate the laws to those selling otherwise illegal products or advice harmful to the public, the following is reason used most often, in support of their decision: “Each of the Decision Makers is satisfied that the test contained in the Legislation that provides the Decision Maker with the jurisdiction to make the decision has been met.” (eg. http://www.msc.gov.mb.ca/legal_docs/ord ... oia_2.html )

Sources, data, documents, and links to public record sources to support each of the comments herein about the investment industry found here:
[url]
http://www.youtube.com/user/investoradv ... ature=mhee[/url] (speaking or video productions by a recovering Canadian broker
[url]
http://www.investoradvocates.ca [/url] web forum for professionals from the investment industry who speak truth to the financial abuses rampant within the industry.

Tainted meat in your body, tainted advice and investment products shortchanging your financial health.............

images.jpeg
images.jpeg (4.52 KiB) Viewed 14147 times
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:30 am

Screen Shot 2012-08-29 at 9.23.07 AM.png


http://www.investmentexecutive.com/-/video-24283-stromberg-on-fiduciary-standard-make-it-law?redirect=%2Fsearch

Great six minute video interview of a former OSC Chairperson, talking about fiduciary duties, advisor misrepresentation, tricks built into the law, and what should be done to deal fairly with Canadians.

Well worth watching for those who wish a better understanding of the law (she is a lawyer), the problem, the loopholes, and the solutions by someone who truly knows.

The only problem involved is in getting around the billions of dollars made in profits to investment firms who prefer the status quo.

Please share the video widely with those you care about.

"every one percent in fees you pay on your investments will cut 20% off the future value of your investment......" Fantastic info for investors.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:50 pm

Screen shot 2012-07-28 at 7.42.59 PM.png


Further to the topic of "suitability" as the rule applies to the investment recommendations made to you by your salesperson:

http://www.iiroc.ca/Documents/2012/d21b ... de1_en.pdf

IIROC notice #12-0109
Dated March 26, 2012


At this link is the IIROC (Investment dealers self regulatory assn) definitions of suitability and this definition (and a few others, including common sense definitions) should be used to help get your money back from malpractice by your financial seller.

I will highlight the items in red that suggest areas where clients are usually misled, misrepresented, or misinformed. In addition, will be some areas that the industry regularly fails to live up to their own rules and are of great use in getting your money back. (I point out that getting your money back does NOT usually include going into the industry Kangaroo court process, or the industry-hired, private banking ombudsmen, these too, appear to be captured and privatized now. These steps require you to appear in front of an impartial non-industry court. Good luck to you.

Select quotes from the IIROC page as follows: (July 28, 2012, do not be surprised if IIROC changes the wording after they realize how it can be used to help the public get their money back)

OVERVIEW OF THE REQUIREMENTS from page one
Dealer Members and Registered Representatives are reminded that compliance with the suitability requirements is fundamental to compliance with general business conduct standards and is essential to good business practice.

The suitability requirement is also complementary to the fundamental obligation under securities legislation for all Dealer Members and their representatives to deal fairly, honestly and in good faith with clients.

The fundamental obligation includes a duty to disclose known or discoverable risks to the investor before entering into any transaction.

From page four
Know your client information items to be collected and assessed
Under the current rules, there are several questions that Registered Representatives must ask their clients in order to satisfy their “know your client” obligation and equip themselves to conduct a proper suitability assessment.

Other factors, such a client’s risk tolerance and investment objectives may, however require further discussion and assessment. Registered Representatives are reminded that the client’s investment objectives and risk tolerance are two separate but related factors; each factor must be assessed based on the client’s financial and personal circumstances and must be reasonable in light of those circumstances. The reasonableness of such information should be reviewed by the Registered Representative and the Dealer Member during the account opening and account approval process. For example, designating an 80% high risk tolerance for an elderly client may be unreasonable if the client has a modest net worth and has opened the account to invest a substantial portion of her net worth.

As per Dealer Member Rule 1300.1, a client’s current financial situation, investment knowledge, investment objectives and time horizon, risk tolerance and the account’s current investment portfolio composition and risk level must be considered when assessing the suitability of orders and recommendations.

From page five
The regulatory obligation to ensure that orders and recommendations are suitable includes not only an obligation to ensure that the specific investment product is suitable for the client but also that the order type, trading strategy and method of financing the trade recommended and/or adopted are also suitable for the client.

As an example, the risk profile of a client who fully pays for a position in a specific security as a core long term holding is significantly different from the risk profile of a client buying the same security on margin, as part of a day trading strategy.

Dealer Members are also reminded that the suitability analysis starts before the order is even received, recommended or executed. The Dealer Member and Registered Representatives, at the time of account opening, should ensure that the account type (margin, trust, option accounts, etc.) is appropriate for the client given the client’s particular circumstances.
Furthermore, Dealer Members and Registered Representatives need to understand the risks and other characteristics associated with the investment products they approve or recommend for sale.

Product suitability
The suitability assessment obligations include a requirement to know and understand the characteristics and risks associated with any investment product approved or recommended to clients. Dealer Members have the responsibility to assess the risks associated with the products that Dealer Members approve for sale. Registered Representatives should understand, and be able to clearly explain to the client, the reasons that a specific security is appropriate and suitable for the client.

I hope that this information can be used by customers who are subjected to "advisor abuse", the violation of customer interests by a person effectively licensed as a "salesperson" (or the altered term, "dealing representative"), while leading the customer to believe they are something other than they are licensed. Clients that I am aware of are successfully challenging the "doublespeak" used by the industry to get their money back in small claims court, as well as ordinary civil actions. So far, the industry is keeping it another well kept secret, as they tend to do when customers succeed in gaining settlement from them.

I find, that "standard industry practice" includes the sad knowledge that the items in red above, allow for approximately nine ways in which the average Canadian investment client gets abused by the person claiming to be there to help them. It is done in a subtle fashion, it is done with inside tricks that the average customer will never learn, but it appears to be done to the extent of 80% to 90% of transactions done by those people who refer to themselves as an "advisor", whether they have this actual license or not.

I provide numerous examples in other posts on this flogg, and I will also try to find the time to follow up on THIS exact post, to elaborate further and help inform consumers. In the meantime, feel free to browse other flogg topics herein and find out how many ways most "advisors" and their investment firms can abuse you without telling you.

My name is Larry Elford and if I can be of help to you I am happy to try. I am offended by the ease with which the average "advisor" gets to violate the interests (and the returns) of their clients, and I spend my time advocating for "fairness, honesty and good faith" dealing that this industry speaks about..........I simply expect them to be able to deliver on this.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm

images.jpeg
images.jpeg (10.97 KiB) Viewed 19045 times

I DID NOT POOP IN MY PANTS!!

In a previous post, a while ago, (GET YOUR MONEY BACK!
by admin » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:30 pm) I mentioned a case of people who are suing a person who called themselves an investment "advisor", and then screwed the client over by acting out the role of a commission salesperson. A classic "bait and switch" game played a hundred thousand times each day in Canada to help steal the retirements of every Canadian who buys into the scam. (ain't self regulation great?)

Anyway, here is one of the responses giving to these clients, by the investment people who lied and misled: ""If the claimants did suffer any damage, such loss was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the claimants".

At the web site http://investorvoice.ca/Cases/Cases_Index.htm there is no end of such statements in such cases. I refer to it and post my thoughts and responses to such self serving arguments below, in the hopes that some may use them to avoid being similarly lied to , misled, and financially abused.

====================================================
(my comments to the folks doing the suing, and getting this response........."If the claimants did suffer any damage, such loss was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the claimants".)

funny.......smiling at my end.........not laughing at you..........

This is an attempt to divert attention blame, and distract from the underlying promise...........remember what the promise was......something to the effect of a promise of trust and integrity and investment advice and so on and so on, etc, blah, blah blah

1. If the defendants were willing to lie, misrepresent and operate without proper or actual license for what they posed as.............and if the defendants were willing to earn the trust of the clients posing as trusted professionals, then it is a bit contradictory to now claim that the strategies were in fact the fault of the claimants.

2. I could easier buy this argument, IF they told you up front of their exact license category...........they did not. They hid it instead.

3. I could easier buy this argument IF they told you up front that they were acting as "commission salespersons", and their entire compensation depended upon getting the client to "act" on their advice. They hid it instead.

4. I could easier buy this argument IF they told you up front that they "reserved the right" to give you investment "advice" which was not the best advice they had in their possession, but instead the best which maximized the commission payable to themselves, despite the resulting harm to your investment performance. They hid it instead.

5. I could easier buy this argument if they actually had made every professionally available step to choose the most suitable, most appropriate, AND most advantageous investment choice that was available to them, which they did not, instead choosing the investment choice which paid them the most money. They hid it instead.

6. I could easier buy this argument if they had told you up front of the various differences between a "discretionary" account, and an account that is non discretionary, including informing you of the differing duties of care owed to the client, and the legal outcomes or obligations resulting from knowing these differences. They hid it instead. (they are now using often used investment industry trick to try and weasel their way out of responsibility)

7. They are also trying to magnify the harm done by a borrowing strategy, claiming it was "your idea" of course.......while distracting the case away from their promise of being your "planner" or "advisor", and also distracting away from the many intentional harms they did to you with their choices to maximize their own commissions. (They "fooled" or "duped" you into the false belief they they were professionals at financial advice, and then they took advantage of this false trust to their own advantage, and your disadvantage. Pretty easy stuff from my angle. (my angle being a former CFP, CIM, FCSI, Associate Portfolio Manager, retired) They are now trying to hide this sleight of hand from the judge.

I could go on I suppose, but I will stop there for ease of understanding.

Do not buy the story and do not let it get to you. It is not personal. Do not take it personally. Stand back and smile at the immaturity of fully grown, fully adult looking men, acting like children. What they are doing is again, the verbal equivalent of a two year old child INSISTING that they DID NOT POOP IN THEIR PANTS!! (They hid it instead.:)

Understand it for that. Smile at it. Calmly point out that they were acting and promising a duty of professional care to you.......and you relied totally upon that care and advice. Again. go and re-read the judges comments in the case Markarian v CIBC. http://investorvoice.ca/Cases/Investor/ ... _index.htm

In fact read as many of the cases at this site as you can........and make sure you pass one or two of the better comments to your judge as part of your case materials. That will really piss off your defendants. There are a few really, really great judgements out there that you could use to stand upon.

Re, the comment, ""If the claimants did suffer any damage, caused by any fault of the firm, such loss was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the claimants", I would just ask that they show exactly where you were negligent. Was it when you believed them in any of the points listed 1-6 above? Or was it something else that they had in mind? I look forward to seeing the negligent act you performed......#7?.....

49 Globe Mutual Special_046.jpg
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:08 am

Picture 1.png
Further to your commission salesperson, or "dealing representative" claims a higher calling of an "advisor", while not holding the proper license nor qualifications as a registered investment advisor:


Dear Mr Elford,

Thank you for your message.

With regards to your questions and comments, you are quite right in that the term "advisor" on its own and used loosely, would be inappropriate for a dealing representative to use without having the educational requirements and experience to be registered as an advising representative.

If you are certain that an individual is holding themselves out inappropriately, please feel free to contact the appropriate securities commission or self regulatory body (Mutual fund Dealers Association or Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada ) through our related links available on our website at: http://www.bcsc.bc.ca our email is inquiries@bcsc.bc.ca We also have a helpful link on our website called Invest-right , which members of the public can use to assist themselves with their investing.

Thank you,


Kent Waterfield
Senior Registration Administrator
Registration & Compliance Branch
Capital Markets Regulation

British Columbia Securities Commission

Phone: 604 899 6694
Fax: 888 242 9341
800 373 6393 (toll free across Canada)
kwaterfield@bcsc.bc.ca


with some related rules, law and tidbits to support the allegation of fraud by investment reps who falsely refer to themselves as "advisors" without being registered as such
=======================================

As one commentator to the SEC staff's study noted, "If the product sold is that of advice, then that advice should be in the best interest of the client. Anything else is fraud, because the seller is delivering a service different from what the consumer thinks he or she is buying."
Edward Waitzer, Financial Post · Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2011

===========================

HAROUTIOUN MARKARIAN, ALICE MARKARIAN and 125134 CANADA INC.,
Plaintiffs
v.
CIBC WORLD MARKETS INC., Defendant

(C) MISLEADING TITLES

¶ 263 The defendant attributed to Migirdic fake titles, i.e. "vice-president" and "vice-president and director", in addition to letting him use the title "specialist in retirement investments". Those titles were false representations that misled the plaintiffs, hid reality from them, disinformed them, comforted them in their confidence in Migirdic, reduced their distrust, and contributed to Migirdic's fraud. The defendant committed a fault in terms of its obligation to inform and advise, in addition to misleading the plaintiffs.

¶ 266 In the defendant's operations, the titles are, in fact attributed to many people. In 1995, there were 206 vice-presidents and 44 vice-presidents and directors out of 556 representatives. In 1997, there were 217 vice-presidents and 109 vice-presidents and directors out of 612 representatives. In 1999, there were 197 vice-presidents and 101 vice-presidents and directors out of 725 representatives, the proportions were about the same in 2000. That year, about 300 of the 700 representatives had a title!

¶ 267 The problem is that clients do not know that these titles are simply marketing tools, i.e. a means to convince them that they have an excellent representative, and recognition for the volume of commissions. Clients therefore believe they have a "very special" and "eminently acknowledged" representative when the representative has the title of "vice-president" or "vice-president and director". That was what Mr. Markarian in fact believed, as he testified. Richard Papazian, another witness (and also a victim) thought the same thing. So the titles create a false feeling of trust, comfort and prestige, the role of which is not trivial in the commission of fraud.

¶ 268 The plaintiffs were the victims of these false representations by the defendant in their regard.

====================================

A fund salesperson who knowingly sells an expensive
mutual fund to a client whose needs would be satisfied by a less-expensive product
cannot be fulfilling the obligation to act fairly and in good faith that is imposed by OSC
Rule 31-505.
Source: Read this piece by lawyer Phil Anisman
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 ... ting-rule-
requires-%E2%80%98good-faith%E2%80%99/

============================


False or misleading representations

52. (1) No person shall, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of a product or ... any business interest, by any means whatever, knowingly or recklessly make a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect.
(this from the Competition Act)
=======================

PART VII.1 DECEPTIVE MARKETING PRACTICES Competition Act of Canada

Misrepresentations to public

74.01 (1) A person ... who, for the purpose of promoting, ... the supply or use of a product or ... any business interest, by any means whatever, (a) makes a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect.
====================


False Pretences

361. (1) A false pretense is a representation of a matter of fact either present or past, made by words or otherwise, that is known by the person who makes it to be false and that is made with a fraudulent intent to induce the person to whom it is made to act on it.

362 (1) Every one commits an offense who (a) by a false pretense ... obtains anything in respect of which the offense of theft may be committed or causes it to be delivered to another person; (b) obtains credit by a false pretense or by fraud; (c) knowingly makes ... a false statement in writing ... with respect to the financial condition or means or ability to pay ... (i) the delivery of personal property, (ii) the payment of money, (iii) the making of a loan, ... or credit ... (vi) the making, accepting, discounting or endorsing of a bill of exchange, cheque, draft or promissory note; or (d) knowing that a false statement in writing has been made ..
criminal code
=========================


44.(1) No person or company shall represent that he, she or it is registered under this Act unless the representation is true and, when making the representation, the person or company specifies his, her or its category of registration.

Jeffrey Fennell
Senior Inquiries Officer
Ontario Securities Commission
==============

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/r ... c-s-4.html
Readings from the ALBERTA SECURITIES ACT

Chapter S‑4

"HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows:

Definitions
1 In this Act,
............
(ii) “misrepresentation” means
(i) an untrue statement of a material fact, or
(ii) an omission to state a material fact that is required to be stated, or
(iii) an omission to state a material fact that is necessary to be stated in order for a statement not to be misleading;"

=====================================
Advocate comments: The basic fundamental misrepresentation that fools most retail investment customers is the "bait and switch" that goes on around the license categories of "advisor" and "salesperson" (pre 2009) or "dealing representative" (post 2009.

The simple version is this: No self respecting investment salesperson wanted to be known as a "salesperson", so in the spirit of self regulation (we do anything we want), the name "advisor" is used by the majority of people who sell investments by commission. Despite the fact that their license category is NOT advisor, and that advisor is a separate, distinct and far advanced category of registration, and despite the fact that advisor lends the public to believe their is some professional duty or obligation to "care" for the interests or to place the interests of the customer ahead of their own personal interests. Not true.

The end result is that the industry is playing a "name game" in order to misrepresent and to fool the public into a state of greater trust and confidence. A "con" game if you will, to get easier and more compliant access to sell the public investment products.

Ask the next person who gives you a business card saying "advisor" on it to show you his or her license, or look it up yourself at the securities commission.
==================================

Misrepresentation is subject to a fine of up to $1 million dollars and prison term of up to five years.

==================================

Picture 4.png
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:30 pm

bait_and_switch.jpg
bait_and_switch.jpg (17.49 KiB) Viewed 19358 times
On March 10, 2012, at 4:44 PM, P wrote:

You can't see any rational explanation for the group exposure changing. We did sign their standard risk disclosure. However, we signed a risk disclosure when we invested in a Money Market fund too. He told us it wasn't risky. I don't think that means we FULLY understood by law. We have an email after asking him to explain it again and his answer. I'm just trying to counter all the loop holes.
Thanks for the help.
I believe that one day we'll have to actually meet you Larry. : )


====================================
my reply:
Standard risk disclosure should not be relevant if he assured you of contrary info, based on his verbal assurances, and body language and falsely implied duties of professional care............it is like finding out that a doctor told you to "just sign here, it is only a formality, nothing to worry about", while simultaneously telling you that "this is just paperwork", the operation is very safe, "very safe"...........and then.........a year later, you learn that:

a) the man was not licensed as a plastic surgeon (or perhaps even licensed as a doctor?) as he implied

b) he duped you into a level of trust (your head nodding yes, while he "advised" you what to do....... your consumer defences down.....)

c) the truth is that the risks are and were very high and very real, and he told you otherwise, while fooling you into signing his paperwork (veeery bad practice to dupe a signature out of a consumer, while putting them at professional risk.......wouldn't you think)

d) and then you learn that the operation he did on you, and/or the medicine prescribed after, was less effective than other medicines or procedures available, but he chose the one he did based not on what was best for your health, but best for his paycheque...........

e) further, you learned that he could have done this very same (but poor) procedure for less cost, but that he chose the maximum charge available to him to charge you, again to earn a great deal more for himself...........

f) and then you learned that there were other hidden incentives paid to him by other medical suppliers that he is connected with (DSC fees, trailing commissions, free trips, marketing incentives, internal sales contests, "vice president" titles, what else can you think of?)

g) and finally, you learn that the medicine (or treatment) is actually considered professionally to be one of the poorest choices for your health, but (again) was chosen by him for reasons of making greater fees on it, than doing a better, more professional procedure

I may have doubled up or repeated myself on (g), but that too would be debate-able if you dissect the investment choices involved carefully.

re falsely implied duties of professional care. You signed something, based on false representations of a professional "advisory" relationship. Said relationship did not exist and thus you have been defrauded. Plain and simple.

re: (veeery bad practice to dupe a signature out of a consumer, while purporting to be someone (advisor vs commission salesperson) you are not AND while putting them at professional risk.......wouldn't you think?) A solid professional practice of self protection against the very type of complaint you have, is to write up a very clearly worded letter or warning to the client, suggesting that what they are doing is potentially harmful to them, and is NOT part and parcel of any advice from "advisor", and that this course of action is entirely the choice of the customer for purposes of being very aggressive.........AND this letter to be signed and acknowledged as read and understood by the client.....AND simultaneously the client KYC (Know Your Client) form is to be amended to read HIGH RISK,AGGRESSIVE GROWTH OBJECTIVE, chosen by client, signed by client, dated, and copy of the letter sent to client as confirmation AND entered into database record of client.......then and only then would a true professional "advisor" allow a client to take on high risk, high aggressive leverage strategies.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:05 pm

images.jpeg
images.jpeg (13.04 KiB) Viewed 19341 times

How the investment sales "BAIT AND SWITCH" looks from the other end of your money.......(when it is gone, I mean)

Some further back and forth between myself and an abused investment customer who is trying to get their money back........FYI to other investment malpractice victims.........

==========================

Hi Larry,
Can you give me your "non-legal used to be an advisor" reflection on the following situation:

On all of our account NAAF's and KYC's, our advisor never split our assets on our individual accounts.

The firm says we qualified for the leveraged loans because of our income. It has been pointed out to us that IIROC and the firm don't have specific criteria for leveraging. We were declined for one of our two joint loan applications for the leveraged investment because of the group exposure. We were approved for one of them. The Contact logger then said that our advisor cancelled our loan applications to apply for them individually and to expect new individual applications for the loans. On the NAAF's for our first two leveraged accounts, they stayed joint and he never re-did them for my spouse's Loan. Then we were then approved for one joint loan and one individual loan. We are confused about why we were declined for two joint loans, but accepted for one joint loan and one individual loan. How does our group exposure change in this situation? If we qualified because of our income, why was one of our initial loan applications turned down?

The other partner applied for my spouse's loan. The firm says that is because we bought a segregated loan with that money. Our position is that it may have been done as our other one was declined and now it isn't cross referenced as it is with another advisor. No proof of that rationale. However, our emails with the firm trying to unravel the mess have their compliance insisting we had only one loan. The initial joint one. It took the a month to find the other one. I don't think they were filed together.

If we go small claims,no one can find the advisor, AWOL. Our advisor was the branch manager. From what I have read, he was the ultimate responsibility for the branch. All NAAF's are signed by his partner and compliance. Loan applications were signed by just him and/or his partner. It looks like we have to pin the whole responsibility on the firm and bank and not argue the advisor's behaviour? just supervision and misrepresentation? My feeling is that then the firm should have to find the advisor for restitution. But that is just me.

The point has been made that because the bank that approved the loan after it was declined that perhaps they should share liability. We don't have time to go thru a complaint process with them and would have to put them on the statement of claim. Because that loan bought a segregated product, it would come under a different insurance ombudsman. On the positive, it feels like the line of questioning is supportive of our claim, but I am still doubtful of the end process. But it is a more positive feeling about them.

It's SO complicated! Drawing from your experience in the industry, what do you think?
Thanks for your reflections.

====================================


What do I think? I will go far beyond what I think and tell you that which I know :).....from twenty years of being inside the system of commission selling of investment products,......... it is this that I know:

That the salesperson (who may have claimed to NOT be a salesperson, but that is another paragraph....and another industry misrepresentation) will document the new account forms, or the KYC forms to EXACTLY the manner necessary in order to justify the sales he or she is intending to make to you.

If this means forgery, that has happened in the past. If that means filling in the forms after the client is gone, that was almost standard practice in some offices and by some salespersons. If it meant sitting down with the client and "coaching" them through the form, making "suggestions" to them about what their objectives "should" be, or what would "be best", etc., etc then that is what will take place.

Remember that the customer is there, having been assured a level of professional advice, of standards, and of implied duties from the "advisor". The fact that this may not have been delivered is NOT the fault of the client, nor is it the client's fault if they suspended their normal "buyer beware" level of mistrust, of judgement, or of skepticism. The client was lured into a relationship where they thought they were getting a trusted professional, and they were NOT given this. They were lied to at this level, then their misplaced trust was used and abused by the "advisor" who assured them he was their "advisor". If you are in the office of your doctor and he "walks" you through some documents, or some questionnaire on exercise or treatment or the other.......the typical response is to "take his advice and direction". You are not to be blamed for being victimized by a financial person who plays this same professional card with you.

http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-calgar ... ideo-video 2 minute explanation of the "foundations" of your fraud
It should come as no surprise (to a judge) that the fruit of this poisoned tree of misrepresentation might bear no relationship to reality or to the truth.............but I can assure you one thing..........the commissions were great:) for what the guys sold you........and greater for convincing you of the leverage thing.

you have been systemically duped, by a system designed to maximize profits to themselves and minimize professional accountability...........

I am rambling now, and off track, but what does it matter what the firm says? The firm has proven with a few examples that they will say and do anything, including lie, in order to mislead and manipulate the customer. At what point should we start to believe them? At what point do they have credibility? I will tell you exactly where their credibility begins and ends.........it begins with their own system of "self regulation" (IIROC, MFDA, Securities Commissions, etc., etc) and it ends the moment it is put in front of an objective, non industry paid judge.

So what if you had enough income to qualify? Was it advice in your interest (as you were led to believe) to leverage you to the nines, or was it advice in the salespersons interest? You have been defrauded, regardless of the paperwork, regardless of your income, regardless of your level of sophistication. The fraud was in what you were misled to believe, and what product you were sold, and what manner you were sold it.......not whether you were a big enough boy to "take it".

(the only factor which would alter the above position is that if you had a letter from your firm and it's salesperson, telling you in no uncertain terms of the risks of leveraging, of the potential for increased loss, etc., etc, and which you signed saying you were FULLY aware of those additional risks, and were FULLY willing to assume and accept them. (you may have seen such risk waivers used in the medical profession, and I assure you they are also used by very professional investment people, who would like there to be NO UNCERTAINTY about the course of action they have "advised")

Without this risk waiver, you just got sold a bunch of high cost mutual funds by a guy calling himself an advisor, but who has no advisor license, by a firm promising you some trust and care, and delivering instead mostly highest fee selling.........how many frauds can we cover in this?)

I am sorry if this does not help, but I think the main thing to remember is to keep the main thing, the main thing, and the main thing is not in the minute details of whether or not you had enough income for him to abuse you......or in any other of the minute details they are throwing at you........these are simple little roadblocks which simply build up and reinforce the image of a firm which does not live up to its promise of trust and integrity...............the main thing is that they lied to you and conned you into a position of trust, and then abused this trust to earn more money for themselves.........that is the main thing. Do not let them roll you around in the dirt of distraction.......:) And remember to have fun. They are getting very desperate, and you are getting very close to some pretty large truths. Truths that are affecting millions of Canadians in this very same game, all of them fighting this same fight in silence and secrecy.

Thanks for having some willingness to fight the good fight, and get something about these abuses on the public record.

Larry

PS, some further specifics about whether or not you need to find the advisor.......who cares? Finding the advisor is not your problem, it is theirs. They owe you the duty they led you to believe, and if the advisor did not provide that, then they have a problem with HIM. Their obligation to you is to make you whole, if they did not treat you honestly, (or if their licensed or unlicensed rep did not) then your issue is with them.

Re the bank issue, joint liability or something.........another attempt to sidetrack you onto some dirt road of irrelevance in my opinion. If the investments were properly represented, AND in your best interest, AND all material facts fully disclosed to you, AND they had you sign off that you were a big boy and you knew and understood every aspect of the above......then, they would have no problem, the bank's expectations would have been met as well (because this is what the bank expects them to do), and you would have no case and no reason to complain.

They failed to professionally cover off anything in the paragraph above, their advisor has skipped town, and they are trying to beat you a second time (first beating was getting your commission money) by not being responsible as the professionals they claimed to be. Don't let them distract you with their bull.

Whew!.......glad to get that out of my system:)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:36 am

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AHe ... 25csU/edit

At this link is a document outlining how they calculate what an investor is owed, in order to "make them whole", if they have been the victim of an unsuitable investment.

Screen shot 2012-03-10 at 9.31.06 AM.png


Click to enlarge image or go to link for actual doc

Keep in mind that in Canada, these types of fairness discussions are frowned upon and not generally "allowed" by our self regulating industry. Do not take this as the final answer to your problem, however, as suitability, fraud, misdirection or malpractice is still wrong, even if those inside the industry do not admit it here yet.

In Canada, we are a decade or two behind most developed countries, in investor protection. Pursue your case as if right is right and wrong is wrong, and pursue it with independent authorities (criminal and civil courts) and NEVER ever fall into the trap of the kangaroo courts run by those paid by the industry. If you enter any industry paid process, you will no doubt suffer a second loss, the first being your money.

Cheers to your financial health.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:10 pm

images.jpeg
images.jpeg (3.37 KiB) Viewed 19785 times
(seriously folks, get ALL of your money back and any commissions you paid if any person calling themselves an "advisor", "advised" you to .......borrow to invest.......seriously)

from David Baines at the Vancouver Sun... http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Bo ... story.html


Opinion: Borrowing for stock market investments is a dangerous game


BY DAVID BAINES, VANCOUVER SUN COLUMNIST JANUARY 5, 2012

In its latest annual report, the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada announced it will focus its enforcement efforts on advisers who recommend inappropriate leveraging strategies to their clients.
Photograph by: Sun news services files, .
In its latest annual report, the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada announced it will focus its enforcement efforts on advisers who recommend inappropriate leveraging strategies to their clients.

Good thing, too. In my view, other than investment in penny dreadfuls, there is no more perilous investment strategy. I can-not emphasize this too much.

Leveraging involves borrowing money for investment purposes. In most cases, the investor puts up his home and/or existing investments as security.

By utilizing this additional capital, any gains will be magnified. For example, if you invest $100,000 of your own money in mutual funds, and the value of those funds increases by 10 per cent, you will earn $10,000.

However, if you borrow an additional $400,000, a 10-per-cent gain will return an additional $40,000. So you gain a total of $50,000, which is a 50-per-cent return on your original equity investment of $100,000.

Often these investments are structured so that the investment income (or in some cases a return of capital) is used to make the loan payments. The idea is that, even if the market dips, the investor will have enough cash to service the loan, and can sit tight until the market rebounds.

There are also tax benefits. Any loan acquired for investment purposes is tax deductible.

It adds up to a very seductive investment opportunity, but it has a very ugly flip side. Using the same example, if the market declines by 10 per cent, you will lose a total of $50,000, which is half your original equity investment. And you still owe the bank $400,000.

That's a very scary proposition. As we have seen in recent years, market downturns can be very wrenching. If the investor does not have the nerve or the financial capacity to with-stand the heat, he will bail out, crystallizing some very heavy losses.

Of course, the loan remains and the ongoing debt servicing requirements can seriously compromise the investor's life-style. If the investor is unable to make the payments, the lender will most likely realize on the security, which often includes the family home.

In my view, it is a strategy that is appropriate for only the wealthiest and most sophisticated of investors. How-ever, most people who invest in mutual funds are not market savvy. They are generally people who want other people to manage their money, even though they are almost certain to get below-market returns.

According to Morningstar Canada, a Toronto-based investment research firm, 77 per cent of Canadian equity mutual funds underperformed the S&P/TSX Composite Index during the year ending Nov. 30. This is due mainly to the hefty management fees that mutual fund companies charge their clients.

Over longer periods the figures get worse. During the past three years, 90 per cent of Canadian equity mutual funds underperformed the market, and over the past five and 10 years, that figure exceeded 96 per cent.

(These calculations include only the core funds offered by mutual fund companies, as defined by Morningstar. Where there are multiple versions of a fund, only the core fund is included.)

dbaines@vancouversun.com



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Op ... z1ickySZi4
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:12 pm

Mutual Funds.jpg

Here is an example of an investment client, who was placed into high commission funds, and leveraged to boot, who truly has figured out how to write a decent complaint to get his money back:

The letter is so good that I had to post it here for others to see. There are tens of thousands of similarly abused investors out there who have been taken by dishonest and corrupt practices. Read and get your money back.
===========================

November 2011,

Dear CEO,

We write in regards to (NAME REMOVED)'s lack of response to our complaint letter. You clearly state on your website that “At (NAME REMOVED), we… put our clients first” and highlight your “principles of honesty, trust and integrity,” yet our experience with your firm has been to the contrary.

Perhaps a truer version of (NAME REMOVED) is revealed on Advisor.ca where you are quoted as having said, “I realized our clients are our advisors.” You claim to have “doubled our assets and tripled our gross commissions in about a year with selling “a conservative, leveraged approach for making loans that are tax-deductible” and by “rais[ing] initial capital for small companies and take them public,” “with the minimum amount of interference.” I believe we may not be the only customers who were abused by (NAME REMOVED) advisors.

The sales to us of these unauthorized and unsuitable investments and the leveraged strategies garnered with false disclosure are clearly in violation of IIROC regulations. Your lack of response denies your advertised principles. We feel we were sold these investments for the benefit of your firm and “advisor,”(NAME REMOVED).

Background checks now reveal that the person at your firm whom was promised to us to be an "advisor" was not at any time licensed as an "advisor ". We have also learned of industry "suitability" rules which appear to be violated by selling us the fund class which paid the highest commission and highest trailing commission, when an equal, but lower cost alternative was available to us. This does not strike us as being the actions of an "advisor".

Further we have learned that your representative also violated something in the industry known as the "best execution rules" by giving us the poorest cost advantage possible, and the best commission advantage available to yourselves.

Your company name misleads consumers to believe they are receiving investment advice from financial advisors, when the actual license and registration category, as well as the compensation scheme places them as mere "salesperson", or as "dealing representatives", the license term that replaced "salesperson" in 2009.

These clear and numerous acts on the part of your company not only violate the promises of, “principles of honesty, trust and integrity”, that are given by your firm, but could also be construed by some to constitute criminal acts of fraud, negligence, misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. Those laws are under the administration of the criminal code of Canada, and the Competition Act of Canada.

We expect that (NAME REMOVED) will stand by its advertised principles of honesty, trust and integrity and make our account 100% whole by returning the interest paid on the leveraged investments, lost opportunity costs that would have been earned on a suitable strategy, and the costs of pursuing this complaint due to the further abuse of withholding our money from us as we pursued a response.

Without a response in 90 days that fully compensates us for our losses and damages, we will be forced to take our complaint file with us to the courts. We are at this time pursuing both civil and possible criminal actions in response to the the manner in which our money has been abused by your firm. I trust that this matter will be dealt with in the most timely and serious manner possible, to prevent having to engage the civil and or criminal courts.

We hope that (NAME REMOVED) will stand behind its principles and do what it takes to correct the breach of trust we have experienced and the financial loss and damage to our accounts.

Kind Regards,

(NAME REMOVED)

(Advocate will try and provide a followup and an update as to the outcome or resolution of this complaint)
"GO GET YOUR MONEY BACK FROM GROSSLY NEGLIGENT INVESTMENT SELLERS AND INVESTMENT SALES MALPRACTICE"
45 REP skimming_042.jpg
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:32 pm

(Advocate comments: anyone with an RRSP, or a basic garden variety investment account has what is called a "non discretionary" account. Here is good info on how the industry will use this to screw you if they need to)


ABOUT BROKER FRAUD BLOG
Sponsored by The Hayes Law Firm
Non-discretionary Accounts
August 06, 2007
HIDING BEHIND LABELS----THE "NON-DISCRETIONARY" ACCOUNT DEFENSE
HOW DO YOU PROVE YOUR BROKER CONTROLLED THE ACCOUNT EVEN THOUGH IT IS LABELED NON-DISCRETIONARY?
by Lawrence C. Melton, lmelton@dhayeslaw.com THE HAYES LAW FIRM, http://www.dhayeslaw.com, 1-866-332-3567 (toll free)

There are two general types of investments accounts: non-discretionary and discretionary. A non-discretionary account requires the broker to obtain authorization before it makes any investment decisions. A discretionary account allows an investment broker to make account transactions without the client’s prior approval. The problem is twofold: (1) brokers often treat non-discretionary accounts as if they were discretionary, and (2) brokers do not adequately explain the difference between the two accounts to the customer.
Suppose you, the average investor, open an account with a brokerage firm. Chances are you will do so without knowing whether the account is discretionary or non-discretionary. Down the road, the broker messes up, defrauds you, and makes grossly unsuitable investments. You want to take legal action, but you are uncertain. What will be the broker’s defense? He will say the account was non-discretionary and deny responsibility. In other words, he will blame you. He will say you were in control of the account, not him. No doubt, this is news to you. After all, the broker acted like he was in control. There was implicit understanding that he was in control. The only basis the broker has for saying that he was not in control is the non-discretionary status of the account.
How do you overcome this defense? How do you prove that the broker was in control, even though the account was non-discretionary? Answer: You have to prove the broker “assumed” or “usurped” control of your account.

A broker is not insulated from a charge of unsuitable trading merely because the customer did not vest the broker with formal written discretionary authority. Rather, where it can be shown that the customer-broker relationship is such that the broker in fact manages the trading in the account, control will be found. (In re Thomas McKinnon Secs., CCH Fed Secur L Rep ¶ 99104 (1996, SDNY)).
Typically, this occurs when the customer evinces such trust and confidence in his or her broker that the customer invariably follows the broker's advice and recommendations. (See Newburger, Loeb & Co. v. Gross, 563 F.2d 1057 (2nd Cir. 1977); Mihara v. Dean Witter & Co., 619 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1980)).
The question is whether the customer has sufficient understanding and financial acumen to evaluate the broker's recommendations and reject them when the customer thinks it inappropriate. (See Newburger, Loeb & Co. v. Gross, 563 F.2d 1057 (2nd Cir. 1977); Carras v. Burns, 516 F.2d 251 (4th Cir. 1975); Newburger, Loeb & Co. v. Gross, 563 F.2d 1057 (2nd Cir. 1977)).
http://www.aboutbrokerfraud.com/nondisc ... _accounts/ 11/25/2011
ABOUT BROKER FRAUD BLOG: Non-discretionary Accounts Page 2 of 3
Where the customer is relatively naive and unsophisticated, and the customer routinely follows the broker's advice, control will generally be found. (Mihara v. Dean Witter & Co., 619 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1980); Hecht v. Harris, Upham & Co., 283 F.Supp. 417 (9th Cir. 1980)).
While an otherwise intelligent customer will not be allowed to hide behind a mask of ignorance, the customer's sophistication and success in one area of life will not necessarily mean that he or she will be found sophisticated enough to understand all the risks of a particular investment or trading strategy, so as to protect the broker from a finding that the broker controlled an account. Clark v. John Lamula Investors, Inc., 583 F.2d 594 (2nd Cir. 1978); Cruse v. Equitable Sec. of New York, Inc. 678 F.Supp.1023 (SDNY 1987).
Whether or not a broker controls the trading in his or her customer's account is a question of fact. Control may exist as a result of an express written agreement between the broker and the customer, or may be inferred from their particular relationship. (Fey v Walston & Co. 493 F2d 1036, CCH Fed Secur L Rep ¶94437, 18 FR Serv 2d 835 (7th Cir. 1974); Newburger, Loeb & Co. v Gross (1977, CA2 NY) 563 F2d 1057, CCH Fed Secur L Rep ¶96148, 1977-2 CCH Trade Cases ¶61604, 24 FR Serv 2d 42 (2nd Cir. 1977), cert denied 434 US 1035, 54 L Ed 2d 782, 98 S Ct 769, appeal after remand (CA2 NY) 611 F2d 423, 28 FR Serv 2d 602).
To determine whether a broker exercised de facto control over trading in a non-discretionary account, courts look to several factors. Zaretsky v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 509 F.Supp. 68 (SDNY 1981); In re Thomas McKinnon Secs., CCH Fed Secur L Rep 99104 (SDNY 1996).
Of critical importance are the personal characteristics of the customer, such as his or her age, education, general intelligence, and business and investment experience. Control is likely to be found where the customer is particularly old, young, lacking in education, or was inexperienced in the stock market or lacked financial sophistication. Hecht v. Harris, Upham & Co., 283 F.Supp. 417 (9th Cir. 1980) (finding control when customer was particularly old); Kravitz v Pressman, Frohlich & Frost, Inc., 447 F.Supp.203 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 1978) (finding control when customer was particularly young); Leib v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 1978) (finding control when customer lacks education); Carras v. Burns, 516 F.2d. 251 (4th Cir. 1975) (finding control when customer lacks education or is inexperienced in the stock market or is lacking financial sophistication).
Another factor closely examined by the courts is the relationship between the broker and customer, whether it was an arm's length business relationship or a combination of business and friendship.
Also significant are the reliance placed on the broker by the customer. Fey v. Walston & Co., 493 F.2d 1036 (7th Cir. 1974); Petrites v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 646 F.2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA); Marshak v. Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co., 413 F.Supp. 377 (ND Okla 1975). If a broker has acted as an investment adviser, and particularly if the customer has almost invariably followed the broker's advice, the fact finder may consider this as evidence that the relationship is discretionary and that the broker owes a fiduciary duty to the customer. Patsos v. First Albany Corp., 433 Mass. 323, 741 N.E.2d 841 (Mass. 2001).
A course of dealing in which a broker executes trades without client's prior approval suggests that the account is discretionary for purposes of broker's fiduciary duties; similarly, if a broker has acted as an investment adviser and client has frequently relied on that advice, there is a strong indication that the account is discretionary. In re Murphy, 297 B.R. 332, 41 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 226 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2003).
http://www.aboutbrokerfraud.com/nondisc ... _accounts/ 11/25/2011
ABOUT BROKER FRAUD BLOG: Non-discretionary Accounts Page 3 of 3
Past evidence of following broker's advice will establish control. If a broker has acted as an investment adviser, and particularly if the customer has almost invariably followed the broker's advice, the fact finder may consider this as evidence that the relationship is discretionary and that the broker owes a fiduciary duty to the customer. Patsos v. First Albany Corp., 433 Mass. 323, 741 N.E.2d 841 (Mass. 2001).
As noted by the Second Circuit, a broader duty may be recognized in a non-discretionary account in the following circumstances:
(1) if the broker has engaged in unauthorized transactions or has otherwise effectively taken over the handling of an account even though it is labeled as a self-directed account;
(2) if the client is prevented by "impaired faculties" or extreme lack of sophistication from understanding the basics of trading and thus simply lacks the capacity to handle such an account;
(3) if the broker "has a closer than arm's length relationship" with the client;
(4) if the broker violates legal or industry requirements concerning risk disclosure when opening an account; or
(5) if the broker offers advice on a specific transaction that was "unsound, reckless, ill-formed, or otherwise defective."
Stewert v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 2004 WL 1823902, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 16114 (NYSD 2004) (citing Kwiatkowski v. Bear Stearns & Co., 306 F.3d 1293, 1302-03, 1307-08 (2d Cir. 2002)).
If you can establish the above elements, the broker will not be able to hide behind the non-discretionary account defense. THE HAYES LAW FIRM, http://www.dhayeslaw.com, 1-866-332-3567 (toll free) Free Weblog Directory BlogRankings.com FreeWebSubmission.com Posted at 04:03 PM in Non-discretionary Accounts | Permalink|Comments (1)|TrackBack (0)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: GET YOUR MONEY BACK!

Postby admin » Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:54 pm

320712_256292294408596_201546203216539_630310_586027531_n.jpg
320712_256292294408596_201546203216539_630310_586027531_n.jpg (22.77 KiB) Viewed 19554 times
If you have lost money with the help of someone who claimed to be an "advisor", I suggest you get your money back. Spend some time on this forum and have your research in order and then email me with any questions. I will gladly help you write the letter, file the statement of claim or the private criminal charge for negligent misrepresentation. Only talk to me however if you are able and willing to take a no nonsense, no bull approach to getting your money back. That is what it will take to overcome the vast "reputation protection racket" that the investment industry has placed around itself.

And here is a link for those who have been encouraged to BORROW to invest.

xhttp://faircanada.ca/wp-content/upload ... -final.pdf

there is hope
there may even be justice if you demand it

cheers
larry
lelford@shaw.ca
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2854
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: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron