Index of forum topics, talk to us.


Postby admin » Tue May 03, 2011 8:32 am

images.jpeg (11.75 KiB) Viewed 18396 times

Won $450,000 case today without trial .[ 100% recovery + interest]
Case involved unauthorized trading,fund churning and wholly unecessary borrowing to invest in high MER mutfunds..
The 85 year old widow 's eyes said Thank You . Her voice siad God Bless You.
What a high and great feeling. Took 14 mos. and many letters ,statistical analysis and spreadsheets!

Have to sign gag order but it's finally over..

The dealer capitualated at the 12th hour.

With Bin Laden finished off, today was a day to remember.


(advocate is unfortunate that our trusted Canadian investment firms will practice this kind of financial bullying towards their customers when they get caught causing financial violence upon them. An 85 year old widow is an easy target for financial predators, posing as professionals. Adding insult to injury is the failure to make her whole once caught and pushed into court.........finally forcing a gag order seems like an industry blackmail deal to give her own money back in exchange for prevents the public from being informed or warned and allows the financial predator to repeat this process again and again upon others. How many crimes must our investment industry be allowed to "perfect" before we lift a finger? Buyer Beware in Canadian investing)
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:11 pm

Screen shot 2011-04-06 at 10.50.18 AM.png

The images above and below, (CLICK ON THEM TO ENLARGE) describe some of the BEST EXECUTION duties that your investment broker, seller "advisor" must meet in order to be meeting his or her obligations to you to deal fairly. I have NEVER seen these rules enforced. Thirty years of overcharging clients, double dipping, DSC funds, whatever it takes to put the client into the maximum revenue generation scheme. That is part of the "decriminalization" that results from self regulation. Take this info with you into court (not the industry Kangaroo court process) and get your money back if your salesperson has not met his or her obligations to you. If you go into the industry dispute resolution process, you will enter the "decriminalization" zone. Do not go there.


see also: MFDA rules that you should count on to demand your money back when you discover that your "advisor" has not met these in your case:

“Rule 2.1.1 Standard of Conduct.
Each Member and each Approved Person of a Member shall:
(a) deal fairly, honestly and in good faith with its clients;
(b) observe high standards of ethics and conduct in the transaction of business;
(c) not engage in any business conduct or practice which is unbecoming or detrimental to the public interest
Screen shot 2011-04-06 at 10.45.27 AM.png
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:34 pm

Screen shot 2011-04-28 at 9.23.01 AM.jpg

The above image comes from the ONTARIO SECURITIES ACT April 2011

Why do "advisors" or "advisers" represent themselves as such when they are in fact most often licensed as "salesperson" (pre 2009) and "dealing representative" post 2009)?

I feel it forms part of the "bait and switch" where the industry does everything possible to lead the public to think they are gaining the services of a trusting, professional advisor (someone who would give advice in your best interests), when in fact 80% to 90% of the time what is truly given to the customer is a sales pitch by a commission salesperson, who does NOT have an advisor license.
This would be a fraud, but a fraud that is aided by the legal minds at the OSC......who are in turn paid for by the investment industry.
I hope to see this legal trickery or attempts to defraud the public through trickery corrected.

See other forum posts on advisor fraud topic on this web site, to see how well the more than 60 lawyers at the OSC alone can play legal tricks on the consuming public.
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:26 pm

Screen shot 2011-04-28 at 9.34.55 AM.jpg
Here is an image copied from the Ontario Securities Commission

If your investment "advisor" has sold you DSC funds, for the higher commission and for the trailing fees, when there were cheaper fund classes and choices available for the IDENTICAL fund you must ask yourself if your "advisor" actually gave you the most "suitable" product choice, and the best "advice" he or she could give you, or .............were you sold the most "suitable" product for them, the best "advice" for them.

From MFDA MEMBER REGULATION NOTICE MR-0069 regarding “suitability”. To the extent that there is subjectivity in the analysis, the expectation
of MFDA staff is that the Member and AP take the most conservative
approach and act in the best interests of the client:

How do you (MFDA) explain (or allow) mutual fund salespersons to place mutual
funds product sales into the highest revenue generating mutual fund
class (DSC), when equal and identical mutual fund classes are more
cost effective to the client, and therefore more suitable for the
client?" This practice is forbidden by US regulators, yet accepted or
ignored by yours. Why?

This indicates a failure of the industry requirements to act fairly, honestly and in the clients interest. You should be fighting for your money back. You are a victim of the "bait and switch" described at
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:01 am ... ge-43.html

Some unique provisions of the Competition Act of Canada that are NOT enforced by this government agency when it comes to the financial services result is that financial services predators get a free pass to violate these laws and violate your financial interests.

from section 52. of the act "False or Misleading representations".

General impression to be considered

(4) In a prosecution for a contravention of paragraph (3)(a), the general impression conveyed by a representation as well as its literal meaning shall be taken into account in determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.
(this means that those persons who give customers a "general impression" of trust, professionalism and reliance, when they are only commission salespeople may be in violation of this provision........see ... and-switch )
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:31 pm

B Managers.jpg
If your investment "advisor" has sold you the DSC fund (deferred sales charge) please read the "tricks of the trade" section of this forum and view the enclosed page from the Canadian Securities Institute Branch Manager Training course. (The bottom of page 181 is highlighted in yellow and if you click on it it should get larger and easier to read. It will tell you how your "advisor" took advantage of your trust in him or her.)

From the other posts in this forum (tricks of the trade etc) you will find that your "advisor" is not licensed as an "advisor", has violated the "suitability" rules by selling you the fund class which pays them the highest commission and highest trailing commission, AND they have violated the "best execution rules" of the industry by giving you the poorest cost advantage possible, and the best commission advantage available to them. (Well, not every time, just 80% to 90% of the time according to Canadian Mutual find industry sales stats)

Get your money back from people who fraudulently misrepresent themselves to you and from people who "bait" you with a promise of investment "advice" and then "switch" you by delivering a commission sales relationship. That too is fraud. It is in the criminal code definition of fraud and in the Criminal provisions of the Competition Act of Canada (see topic) on misrepresentation.
Screen shot 2011-04-09 at 9.18.19 PM.png
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:52 am

Fund dealer’s lawsuit against former consultant can proceed to trial, court rules

IGFS seeking $150,000 from McKee for breach of contract, fiduciary duty

Monday, April 4, 2011

By James Langton


An Ontario court is letting a case proceed to trial in which a mutual fund dealer is suing a former consultant over allegedly poor advice provided to two clients.

The province’s Superior Court of Justice has ruled that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial in a suit brought by Investors Group Financial Services Inc. against a former consultant, Alex McKee.

According to the decision, the action brought by Investors Group is seeking $150,000 in damages for breach of contract and, alternatively, breach of fiduciary duty. The firm alleges McKee provided negligent investment advice to a pair of clients when he recommended a leveraged investment strategy to them. (advocate comment......unless your "advisor" sold you investments without a sales commission, and in the lowest possible cost to you, it is most likely that his or her motivation to tell you to leverage is increase his or her commissions. If this has happened to you, you have two practice "infractions" against your salesperson: One is violating the "cost" aspect of the "suitability" rule, and Two is violating securities industry regulations regarding "best trade execution". Add in the third of negligent advice to maximize his or her own commissions and you have a strong case to getting your money back.......just DO NOT enter into the investment industry Kangaroo court process. They own each and every referee)

McKee brought a motion seeking dismissal of the action on the basis that it was commenced outside the two-year limitation period. He argued that the firm became aware of the clients’ complaint about the quality of the advice they had received in October 2004, meaning the statement of claim against him by the firm was out of time when it was served in November 2006.

The firm argued that the limitation period did not begin to run until after its investigation into their complaint was completed in December 2005, as that was the point when it realized it might have a claim against McKee.

After an investigation of the clients’ complaint, the firm entered into a settlement with the clients in March 2006, in which it paid $150,000. It began an action in November 2006 seeking $150,000 in damages from McKee.

In this case, the court found that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial. “I do not accept the defendant’s submission that the plaintiff knew of the clients’ complaint about negligent advice in October 2004, so that the limitation period began to run at that time,” the court said.

Instead, the court said that the essence of the complaint in October 2004 was the amount of the charges imposed on the clients, and that complaint was settled. A second complaint regarding the quality of the advice provided was lodged in March 2005. “There is no indication in that letter that the clients had taken issue with the quality of the advice earlier, or that they had sought compensation from the plaintiff for it,” the court notes.

“The defendant has not satisfied me that the limitation period began to run in October 2004, and, therefore, that the action is statute-barred. As there is a genuine issue requiring a trial, the motion for summary judgment is dismissed,” the concluded, awarding the firm costs of $7,500.00, payable within 30 days.

Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:02 am

various laws, codes bylaws etc... and some bits of a legal judgement in Quebec (Markarian v CIBC) that speaks volumes about industry fraud

wish you the best in getting your money me if you need any help..........visualinvestigations at

MFDA requirement not to mislead, misinform or misrepresent oneself or ones role as an investment industry employee.
MFDA Rule 1.2.1(e) generally prohibits Approved Persons from using any business name (or title) or designation that deceives or misleads, or could reasonably be expected to deceive or mislead, a client or any other person as to the proficiency or qualifications of the Approved Person. In addition, business titles that deceive or mislead clients or the public as to the Approved Person's category of registration are also prohibited
MFDA position on license category / title representation of those licensed as "salespersons"

Hello Larry,

The MFDA does not register individuals as mutual fund salespersons and this responsibility remains with the various provincial/territorial securities regulatory authorities. Both MFDA and IIROC Members are required to be licensed as salespersons pursuant to provincial/territorial securities legislation and the MFDA does not have any additional categories of registration.

As noted in my previous email, the use of business titles by Approved Persons is governed by MFDA Rule 1.2.1(e), which prohibits Approved Persons from holding themselves out to the public in any manner that deceives or misleads or could reasonably be expected to deceive or mislead a client or any other person as to the proficiency or qualifications of the Approved Person under MFDA Rules or any applicable legislation. MFDA staff assess compliance with the requirements of Rule 1.2.1(e) through compliance examinations.

Aamir Mirza
Senior Legal & Policy Counsel
The Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada
email: / Tel: (416) 945-5128


With respect to the registration category of "salesperson" within provincial/territorial securities legislation and the use of business titles as regulated under MFDA Rule 1.2.1(e), I note as follows.

The category of registration contained within the various provincial Acts for an individual licensed to trade on behalf of a dealer is "salesperson"

Aamir Mirza, LL.B.
Senior Legal & Policy Counsel
The Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada
email: / Tel: (416) 945-5128


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)



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 pretence 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.

(1) Every one commits an offence who (a) by a false pretence ... obtains anything in respect of which the offence of theft may be committed or causes it to be delivered to another person; (b) obtains credit by a false pretence 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




¶ 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.


(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

With regards to your question, under the new National Instrument 31-103 as of September 28, 2009, mutual fund representatives are now called mutual fund dealing representatives and individuals who were an advisor under a portfolio manager are now called an advising representative. Please see this attached link for additional details: ... mptions%20[NI].pdf
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)

(and yet all “dealing representatives” are inflating their titles to “advisors” against laws, codes, rules??)


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: our email is 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


Ontario securities law does not seek to regulate use of the term advisor in all circumstances. It is a commonly used or generic term. The purpose of subsection 44(1) of the Act is to ensure that people who represent that they are registered under Ontario securities law, do so in a manner that also states their category of registration.

Jeffrey Fennell
Senior Inquiries Officer
Ontario Securities Commission
(Jeffrey’s comments are in total contradiction to those of the BCSC above.....are these guys just “making it up as they go along??”
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:00 am

this is too funny.............from the "salesperson or advisor" flogg topic.

(I consider this one of the more interesting bits of evidence to be used to get your money back. If you read it or research it carefully it tells me that the industry is simply "making up as it goes along" whatever brings the most sales revenue, and the rules are often changed, ignored, or "papered over" after the fact.

This post contains two contrasting comments from two different Canadian Securities Commissions. One is honest and professional in my opinion, the other is dishonest and unprofessional. It should be uselful (the dishonesty I mean) for those who have lost money due to the fraud and misrepresentation practiced daily by the industry. I will post some of the laws, codes or rules broken on the next post to sum them up. they are also scattered among the salesman topic.

From previous posts in this forum, I was rereading for a legal case of misrepresentation and fraud against a large bank owned broker and I came across this "contradiction" by two securities commissions.

In the first I get what I consider to be an honest and intelligent appraisal of the questions, followed by Jeffrey Fennell of the OSC giving his "hide and cover" "just following orders" answer. Shame on you Jeffrey for not being a professional, not being honest.

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: our email is 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


Ontario securities law does not seek to regulate use of the term advisor in all circumstances. It is a commonly used or generic term. The purpose of subsection 44(1) of the Act is to ensure that people who represent that they are registered under Ontario securities law, do so in a manner that also states their category of registration.

Jeffrey Fennell
Senior Inquiries Officer
Ontario Securities Commission
(Jeffrey’s comments are in total contradiction to those of the BCSC above.....are these guys just “making it up as they go along??” Jeffrey seems to be.........
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:21 pm

advisor fraud, professionals, or salespeople masquerading?
by admin » 25 Feb 2011 03:16 pm

Some interesting quips and quotes from the FAIR (Canadian Foundation for the Advancement of Investor Rights) roundtable. FAIR appears to be trying to do a credible job of moving towards best practices, however it must overcome the stigma of being 100% funded by investment industry interests. In the past, each time the investment industry has "funded" any organization, the fairness balance has landed 90% (+) on the side of fairness for the industry and unfairness for the investing public. Investor advocate comments in red.

Fiduciary Roundtable 2011
Terminology to be used during Roundtable (seriously? We first need to get the facts crooked, before we start?....too cynical? on....)

1. Advisor: The term ‘advisor’ will be used during the roundtable to mean financial planners, whether commission-based or fee-based, portfolio managers, registered representatives and the like. We are not distinguishing among different categories of registration or licensing. (perhaps this "sleight of hand" forms a foundation for consumer misdirection, confusion?......for those uninitiated in the intricacies of financial misrepresentation, this line "we are not distinguishing......allows these men to continue to sell customers on the fraudulent idea that simple commission salespersons can be misrepresented to the public as "trusted" advisors, despite rules and licenses to the contrary.......well played sirs, well played.)

2. Suitability standard: The suitability standard requires that clients receive recommendations on the purchase or sale of securities that are suitable, or appropriate, to their circumstances and takes the following information into account: clients’ investment needs and objectives, their financial circumstances and their risk tolerance. The suitability standard is not as stringent as the fiduciary standard and does not require financial professionals to put their clients’ best interests before their own or to disclose any existing conflicts of interest. The suitability standard allows financial professionals to sell any product that is appropriate for their clients; the product need not be in the client's best interests. (four out of five persons licensed to sell investments thus sell the highest compensation choice to themselves.....suitable? Not when one considers the alternatives freely available)

The concept of suitability is addressed in National Instrument 31-103 at sections 13.2(c) and 13.3.
Section 13.2(c) of NI 31-103 states that a registrant must take reasonable steps to ensure it has sufficient information regarding all of the following to enable it to meet its obligations under 13.3 or, if applicable, the suitability requirement imposed by an SRO: (i) the client’s investment needs and objectives; (ii) the client’s financial circumstances; and (iii) the client’s risk tolerance.

Section 13.3(1) of NI 31-103 states that a registrant must take reasonable steps to ensure that before it makes a recommendation to or accepts an instruction from a client to buy or sell a security, or makes a purchase or sale of a security for a client’s managed account, the purchase or sale is suitable for the client. (I wonder if they consider the ethics of "advising" customers to purchase the "highest" compensating product, and if selling the highest comp product meets the suitability test?) (in the United States this practise is clearly stated as being "unsuitable", but here in Canada, we have these "gentlemen" who have agreed upon their own special "terminology". Once again, well played......))

3. “Fiduciary Duty/Standard” Definition: The concepts of “fiduciary law and fiduciary duties” were developed many centuries ago to protect the interests of people who placed their trust in others. When a breach of a fiduciary duty is found, judges are able to award remedies above and beyond traditional common law remedies.
In the financial client-advisor context, advisors who are considered ‘fiduciaries’ must always put a client’s interests ahead of their own personal interests, and ahead of those of their firm. The standard of conduct expected of a fiduciary is that he or she must act with honesty, integrity, fidelity and in utmost good faith (not just ‘good faith’), and always in the best interests of his or her client. If there is an unavoidable conflict, that conflict must be fully and clearly disclosed. (as if this conflict gets disclosed each a self regulatory industry, WE get to choose which rules to enforce and which to ignore)

In the financial advisor-client relationship, there is no statutory fiduciary duty. (this appears to be a self serving statement with no basis in fact it is contradicted by Canadian Securities Institute industry training books and industry compliance manuals) In terms of case law, courts will decide whether a fiduciary duty exists on a case by case basis. (this is the industry, self serving platitude that they try to sell to the courts, yes) In other words, a court’s determination is based on an examination of the specific facts of each case. (these guys get to actually TELL the courts how to do their job.......nice(??) Canadian courts have generally found fiduciary duties to exist in client-advisor scenarios where elements of trust, confidence, vulnerability, and reliance on skill, knowledge and advice are present. (all of which are promised by nearly every industry advertisment and participant.......why then do they get away with denying this obligation in court? I too often observe that the man who can hire the most lawyers gets to "set the legal stage" for their own outcome.....the 800lb gorilla theory)

Another factor that courts examine are the professional rules or codes of conduct governing the actions of the advisor.
A finding by a court that an advisor has violated his/her ‘fiduciary’ duty to a client results in full compensation being awarded to the client for the damages caused by the breach. (ever seen that occur?) Simply put, that means returning all money lost owing to the breach, any potential earnings lost due to the breach, as well as any breach-related commissions received from the client. (again, have you ever seen this occur?)

4. Requirement for registrants to “deal fairly, honestly and in good faith” with clients [Note: This requirement does not mention utmost good faith, nor a requirement to put a client’s best interests first]:
Ontario Securities Commission Rule 31-505, section 2.1, states that:
(1) A registered dealer or adviser shall deal fairly, honestly and in good faith with its clients. (2) A representative of a registered dealer or registered adviser shall deal fairly, honestly and in good faith with his or her clients. (which part of this involves letting licensed salespersons (or dealing representatives paid by commission) suggest that they are some kind of "unbiased professional guide" to the customer?) (would it be the honesty and good faith part?)
Relevant Excerpts from IIROC and MFDA Client Relationship Model Initiatives
Note: For the sake of brevity, we have included below only select excerpts from the IIROC and MFDA Client Relationship Model (CRM) initiatives. We recognize that there are a number of other relevant sections within the CRM initiatives, and that there are additional IIROC and MFDA rules that deal with conflicts.

Excerpt from Attachment B to IIROC Proposals to implement the core principles of the Client Relationship Model – Proposed Amendments – New Rule XX00 – Conflicts of Interest
XX02. Approved Person responsibility to address conflicts of interest

(1) The Approved Person must consider the implications of any existing or potential material conflicts of interest between the Approved Person and the client. (like choosing a higher comp fund to sell the client when a lower comp fund of nearly identical (except for cost) is available to the conflict there? Again, the 800lb gorilla theory)

(2) The Approved Person must address all existing or potential material conflicts of interest between the Approved Person and the client in a fair, equitable and transparent manner, and consistent with the best interests of the client or clients.

(3) Any existing or potential material conflict of interest between the Approved Person and the client that cannot be addressed in a fair, equitable and transparent manner, and consistent with the best interests of the client or clients, must be avoided. (yes, of course, we will avoid........not)
XX03. Dealer Member responsibility to address conflicts of interest

(1) The Dealer Member must consider the implications of any existing or potential material conflicts of interest between the Dealer Member and the client.

(2) The Dealer Member must address the existing or potential material conflict of interest in a fair, equitable and transparent manner, and considering the best interests of the client or clients. (Hello?)

(3) Any existing or potential material conflict of interest between the Dealer Member and the client that cannot be addressed in a fair, equitable and transparent manner, and considering the best interests of the client or clients, must be avoided.

(4) The Dealer Member must adequately supervise how existing or potential material conflicts of interest between the Approved Person and the client are addressed by its Approved Persons pursuant to section XX02.
2. MFDA Excerpt from MFDA Rule 2.1.4 2.1.4 Conflicts of Interest
a) Each Member and Approved Person shall be aware of the possibility of conflicts of interest arising between the interests of the Member or Approved Person and the interests of the client. Where an Approved Person becomes aware of any conflict or potential conflict of interest, the Approved Person shall immediately disclose such conflict or potential conflict of interest to the Member. (and be promptly marginalized, called a non-team player, and terminated)

b) In the event that such a conflict or potential conflict of interest arises, the Member and the Approved Person shall ensure that it is addressed by the exercise of responsible business judgment influenced only by the best interests of the client and in compliance with Rules 2.1.4(c) and (d).

c) Any conflict or potential conflict of interest that arises as referred to in Rule 2.1.4(a) shall be immediately disclosed in writing to the client by the Member, or by the Approved Person as the Member directs, prior to the Member or Approved Person proceeding with the proposed transaction giving rise to the conflict or potential conflict of interest.

d) Each Member shall develop and maintain written policies and procedures to ensure compliance with Rules 2.1.4(a), (b) and (c).

images.jpeg (3.27 KiB) Viewed 30506 times

If enough people, are paid enough money to ignore enough rules and laws, and they attend enough meetings, and produce enough papers,...(and if they all agree to use the same nonsense terminology at the outset)......can they turn immoral illegal, and unethical behaviours into "standard industry practices? Every day.

Speaking of enough if there is not enough fraudulent material in this document alone, to get ALL OF YOUR MONEY BACK, then you need a better lawyer.
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Sun Feb 20, 2011 10:21 am

"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."

GET YOUR MONEY BACK!! Every investor in Canada has been victimized by the fraud described in the line above. It is by Ed Waitzer, Toronto lawyer and former chairperson of the OSC.

WARNING! If you go to the securities industry to get your money back, you will be inside a giant Kangaroo court, supported by thousands and thousands of people who live off securities industry money. Do not go there.
If you go to the police in Canada to get your money back, be aware that Canadian police defer securities matters (even criminal violations) to the securities industry. No, it is not right, but that is the way it is due to the limitations involved.

Get a very sound lawyer and go get your money back. No matter what the circumstances are/were, if you were dealing with a salesperson, who sold himself to you as some kind of professional "advisor" (without an advisor licence), then you were defrauded. ... story.html link to National Post Article quoting Ed Waitzer above.

The offence of fraud is created by s. 380 of the Criminal Code. The offence is defined as follows:
380(1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Sat Nov 13, 2010 6:08 am The Fund OBSERVER Mid -November , 2010

email from a reader : It is time victims of financial assault are taken seriously Simple financial investigations to take months or years longer than a murder mystery, solution and resolve is definitely reason for victims of financial assault to speak up, stand up, be heard and end financial assault and abuse. - M. in Oshawa
The 6 stages of a financial complaint filer
1. Denial – the investor can't believe he's lost money. Accounts are checked, statements are reviewed. The adviser is contacted to double check facts. You're not sure you have the basis for a complaint- maybe you blame yourself.
2. Anger – You confirm that you've lost money- a lot of it. You can't understand how this could happen. All along your adviser told you all was well ; not to worry. Now, he's refusing to answer questions or take calls. You are upset but you don't know your rights so you don't file a formal complaint. .
3. Bargaining- You ask for your money back. You believe you were misinformed and misled. The firm says you were greedy and you agreed to all purchases. You begin to learn how Bay Street really works and how ineffective regulators are in helping you in your moment of need. You start researching the rules , contact regulators, read articles. You start to see how the odds are stacked against you. You're convinced a complaint won't get you anywhere.
4. Depression – You begin to realize that the firm that told you to trust them isn't there for you. You now understand that the money is gone and you'll have to fight hard to get it back. This is a sobering life changing event that is causing you anxiety and stress in addition to financial hardship. You can't think about anything else except making the painful adjustments. Complaining isn't in the cards .
5. Acceptance- You now acknowledge the losses and the futility of expecting a fair review of your complaint(s). You start to make adjustments to your spending and living habits. You start rethinking how you got into this mess.
6. Resurgence- You start to realize the losses weren't your fault. The adviser sold you risky , complex products that paid him large sales commissions. You decide to fight back. You contact friends, your accountant, investor advocates and feel you should get your money back. You learn how convoluted complaint handling systems are. You learn the pitfalls and get help from others who've gone through the complaint process Hell. You're ready to file a complaint realizing the process will be long, strenuous and costly but you want justice and restitution.
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:47 am

well said Bruce.

If I have sent to you the recent correspondence from the OSC (I am sure the MSC is identical but it would be interesting for you to write and find out) where they tell me that it is illegal if the person you deal with does not inform the customer of his exact registration category.

I posted some of the back and forth with the OSC at under the topic of "salesman or advisor" latest few posts Jan 20ish 2010

It speaks to your case because it suggests that your guy was violating the law while dealing with you, and misrepresenting his title and his role to you...............he then took advantage of this misrepresentation for his own gain and did damage to your financial health. He owes you a 100% refund as a result of the deceit in my opinion. Whether or not it is too late for that, or whether you are able to file a new case based on this information is entirely up to you, but the law (in ontario at least) is pretty clear.

I will bet nearly any amount that your investment guy never once informed you that he was properly licensed as a salesman. (or after sept 2009 as a "dealing representative)



On 22-Jan-10, at 8:03 AM, wrote:

Hi Ryan,

You may think I am a jerk, but the writer is not the one who created the bad experience
that resulted from dealing with your client.

He had us eating out of his hand until 2005 when I finally said no to the Portus Fund
he suggested. That was the third high risk fund your client exposed to folks entering retirement.
We were model clients, clients who obviously placed their trust in the wrong "advisor".

He had numerous opportunities to explain his actions and chose to hide and ignore instead.
My first letter went out in 2006 to AIC Limited, faxed from his office, and all he said was "good luck".
No "come into my office to work this out", just "good luck". A real professional. What a joke.

He had multiple chances to defend his actions and offerings in person and in Small Claims Court, but he refused to do so.

As I have said in past emails, your client and the financial industry of which he is part
was nothing short of a nightmarish experience for both my wife and I.

I now know how problems are created in this industry and how phony the system is collectively,
and due to the fact salt was rubbed into our wounds after the damage was done,
I will work very hard to spread the message of "buyer beware" to all who want to listen.

Yours truly,

Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:24 pm


Enabling the retail investor- Websites worth visiting October , 2009

There are dozens if not hundreds of web sites and blogs related to finance , investing and
investor protection. The internet is a powerful enabler, leveler and asymmetrical
information gap closer. Thousands of people can connect, share and work together on an
―industrial scale‖ .Now, the retail investor doesn‘t have to be in the dark or alone. The
sites, all free, have been chosen based on their Canadian focus, quality, usefulness,
accuracy and objective viewpoint. Educational articles, Prospectuses/Annual Reports,
fees, performance, prices/quotes, calculators, simulators, checklists, mathematical
formulas, regulatory issues, scams and investing pitfalls are all available on-line . The list
below should just about cover every possible need for a retail investor: Basics of investing -- Advocis is the brand name of The Financial Advisors Association of
Canada and claims to be Canada‘s largest association of professional financial advisors
with nearly 17,000 members. See what they say they‘re about. -- This Government run site provides current and historical rate
information on inflation, Canadian and U.S. interest rates and a currency converter to
help convert 50 foreign currencies to and from Canadian dollars. -- all you ever wanted to know about how investor
behavior influences decisions and investment results . Contains good glossary of terms. Great site for news , stock quotes and charts .Type
CA in front of the symbol for Canadian stocks. Documentary film site by a former investment industry
employee who embarks upon a "wizard of oz " journey to find honesty and ethics in the
investment industry -- An interesting section of Here you will find fund
related word games, cartoons, trivia questions, crossword puzzles and more. This U.S.
based site also has links to educational material, a chat room , tips for new investors and
much more. -- Great site for independent thinking mutual fund investors run by Bylo
Selhi ( a pseudonym). Interesting articles, excellent links, book references, a complete
listing of low MER, No-load index funds and more. -- Mutual fund section contains daily pricing information, news items,
and mutual fund resources. --stats on various Bond indices --One of oldest and most read Canadian blogs in the
investing and personal-finance sphere. The writer is a proponent of passive investing with
low-fee, index funds and exchange-traded funds, an approach gaining favour with self-
directed investors. Besides being an interesting and informative read, the Canadian
Capitalist blog can serve as a gateway to other financial blogs via its blogroll and weekly
―This and That‖ roundup. Site is loaded with information on personal finance and
investing. --This site is an online reference tool that provides access
to the price and yield information from CBID, Canada's only electronic, multi-dealer
fixed-income market. Now you can know bond prices.
2 -- Pro-investor site run by Ken Kivenko geared to
educating and cautioning mutual fund investors of the primary issues in mutual fund
ownership. The site also exposes industry sales and other practices that can hurt
financially illiterate investors. The site contains a very useful and unique 100 page +
Intelligent Mutual Fund Glossary, a number of in-depth unbiased educational articles,
references and links and a stress -reducing section on mutual fund humour and cartoons. Lists some of the best sites
recommended by Canadian MoneySaver readers -- A Stikeman Elliot portal that provides the
public with the latest information on regulatory developments in securities law. -- CANNEX gathers and compiles interest rates and
calculation values for financial products and services offered by financial institutions in
Canada. This site run by Cannex Financial Exchange Ltd. provides useful rate
information on term deposits, GIC‘s, GIA‘s, mortgages, personal loans, credit cards and
prime rates. Some data is available free. -- Owner Lee Adler, known as Dr. Stool, says his web site is a
celebration of contempt for all of Wall Street‘s churn of pronouncements. This site
certainly dumps on Wall Street and the investment industry in general. The site captures
attention because it is an unlikely marriage of sophisticated technical market analysis,
conspiracy theories and relentlessly cynical commentary. Topics include ―The anals of
stock proctology‖, a lively bulletin board and some zinger cartoons. Nasdaq is
affectionately referred to as Nascrap. Dr Stool claims that the news services are
Infomercials and ―you can‘t believe anything Wall Street says‖. -- The CFA Institute is an international non-profit organization
based in the United States. Its members and candidates consist of investment analysts,
portfolio managers and other investment decision-makers employed by investment
management firms, banks, broker-dealers, investment company complexes and insurance
companies. The organization‘s mission is to serve investors through its membership by
providing global leadership in education on investment knowledge, sustaining high
standards of professional conduct.. -- The web-site of the Financial Planners Standards Council (FPSC). It‘s
goal is to benefit the public and the financial planning profession by establishing and
enforcing uniform professional standards for financial planners who choose to earn the
internationally recognized CFP™ designation. -- The Investment Funds Standards Committee (IFSC) was formed by
Canada's major mutual fund database and research firms with a self-imposed mandate to
standardize the classifications of Canadian-domiciled mutual funds --The Canadian Investor Protection Fund (CIPF) ensures,
within defined limits, that your cash and securities are protected if you are an eligible
customer of an investment dealer that is a member of one of the sponsoring
organizations. Site provides details . Federal Government‘s Consumer information Gateway ... entre.aspx --Excellent
primer on investing ... lderabuse/, Ontario Seniors‘
Secretariat website
3 -- This is the web site for DALBAR Inc. a leading international
financial services research firm that specializes in measuring the performance of
institutions and financial professionals, employing quantitative and qualitative measures
to determine the ranking. This process includes evaluating how well service
representatives accommodate client inquiries, their knowledge, attitude, telephone
etiquette and timely responsiveness to client requests for information packages.DALBAR
announces a Mutual fund service award winner annually. -- Website of respected fund analyst Dan Hallett. The site contains a
wealth of information on mutual funds written in an objective fact-based manner. -- This is the official website of Canada‘s Association for the Fifty- Plus.
The site has excellent material on money, health, home & family and travel. Current
advocacy initiatives regarding seniors are also highlighted. The money section contains
material on retirement, investing, mutual funds, insurance, personal finance and estate
planning. -- This is the ultimate financial calculator website with over
300 calculators conveniently indexed and cross-indexed. The financial tools include
resources to figure out compound interest, rates of return, mortgage costs, annuities,
retirement planners and an investor profile calculator that helps determine your portfolio
composition based on your risk tolerance. A smaller site is a little
easier to navigate but not nearly as comprehensive --Canadian ETF, Mutual Fund, and RRSP Advice and
articles -- Canadian centre for ethics and corporate
policy -- A social networking site . The site was used effectively by ABCP
investor Brian Hunter to rally support of retail investors to deal with a brokerage firms‘
refusal to provide compensation for selling them risky investments. See Canaccord and
ABCP clients. The postings allowed small investors to get up to speed very quickly on
the situation, with a deep and nuanced understanding of the underlying issues, and thus
prevented them from rolling over easily. It's believed to be one of the first times investors
have galvanized around a social networking site to organize and push for compensation. Shareholder rights website funded by IIROC -- The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) is a
independent body working to protect and educate consumers of financial services.
Includes tip sheets, guides, surveys ,articles on consumer rights interactive tools and
quizzes. The Agency was established to expand consumer education in the financial
sector. Focused on banking, GIC‘s , credit cards, debit , loans. Market Volatility got you down? Fidelity Investments Canada
has launched 4 online tools that illustrate how global markets and asset classes have
reacted and recovered from major upsets. -- Founded by Nobel Prize winner William F. Sharp, FE
analyzes your current investment portfolio to assess your chances of achieving your
retirement goals. -- Financial Services Commission of Ontario ( regulates
Ontario insurance industry)
4 -- Financial Webring is an informal group
of websites which promote individual financial education and empowerment. The content
of each site is the sole responsibility of its owner and no one else. Webring does not
accept responsibility for content. --Site features links to a wide
range of sites serving the finance industry including stock exchanges, investment
associations and regulators. It also contains links to websites dealing with personal and
behavioural finance and education. Use the handy calculators to get a closer look at your
personal financial picture. Contains several retirement planning calculators -- Fundalarm provides terrific insight into the U.S. Fund industry
(the relevance to Canada is very obvious) .‖FundAlarm is a free, non-commercial
Website. Our view of the mutual fund industry is slightly off-center. We help you decide
when it‘s time to sell a fund, instead of when it''s time to buy. The mutual fund industry is
full of broken promises, arrogance, greed, hypocrisy -- the list goes on. We try to shine a
light in the darker corners, and poke holes in balloons that could use some poking.‖ U.S. website dedicated to mutual fund issues relevant to retail
investors. -- Interesting U.S. site offering a critical look at fund economics
and expenses. According to the fund‘s home page ―I am not anti-funds. Nonetheless, I
believe that the industry‘s intellectual dishonesty is both bad for itself and our society.‖ -- The Fund Library is Canada‘s original web site dedicated to
mutual funds. Visitors will find lots of content contributed from a variety of experts. Hard
to find Fund parameters like Beta and Sharpe ratio are available here. Gail Bebee website on personal finance. She`s the Author of No
Hype Investing. -- The Globefund site is packed with detailed fund information,
facts and data. It‘s unique features include easy-to-use fund charting functions, a quick
link to relevant Globe and Mail fund articles, and links to their monthly report on mutual
funds. --Hedge Fund Implode-O-Meter -- Web site has been created to
track the bad news about hedge funds; and what could be worse than hedge funds which
literally implode. As you will see, there is a lot of bad news out there that does not
necessarily get picked up in the daily press. -- Human Resources Canada site for income security programs has been described as one of the few
educational websites that offer the unbiased, clearly written material that busy investors
need . Excellent free Newsletter / -- Index is a comprehensive resource on index funds
investing, promoting a commonsense approach that seeks to maximize expected returns
at each level of risk, utilizing index portfolios. Excellent videos on fees and investor fraud --One of the most popular online destinations in North America
for people seeking a good grasp of investing terms and topics. The site began in 1999
with a financial dictionary that remains its top draw. Site tries to bust through the jargon

and explain concepts in plain language. A much visited feature is the Stock Simulator,
which does a good job simulating the experience of managing a portfolio in an online
brokerage account .Loaded with material on investing an industry professional run site geared to the disclosure
and prevention of investor abusive practices Excellent on-line dictionary for thousands of investment terms -- Got an issue with a firm, the financial
services industry, regulators or Government policy? Create a powerful online petition in
just minutes. The system is flexible, customizable, and very easy to use. And best of all
it's free! --U.S. website hosted by Chicago securities
attorney Andrew Stoltmann highlighting all the latest investment industry scams and
frauds. -- Lots of useful gab about investor advocacy issues
http:/ -- Web-site run loaded with current articles and material on
securities regulation issues in Canada from the investor perspective. -- Joe Killoran's 1994 financial literacy interactive educating and
fund investor empowering point-of-sale thesis with supporting 1-page point-of-sale
documents adhere to the Ancient Chinese Proverb:
Tell me and I forget. Show me and I remember. Involve me and I understand. -- Website for the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada,
an SRO . Details on dealer rules, enforcement actions and studies including a great one
on hedge funds --Good site for learning about Canadian ishare ETF‘s -- Funded by the e-ducation fund of the OSC to provide a
trustworthy source of financial information. The site contains a glossary, investment
basics, a fund fee impact calculator and plain language articles on fraud prevention. -- The Joint Forum was
founded in 1999 by the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators (CCIR), the Canadian
Securities Administrators (CSA), and the Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory
Authorities (CAPSA). It also includes representation from the Canadian Insurance
Services Regulatory Organizations (CISRO). Dispute resolver Robert Goldin`s informative website .Lists 156
Advisor faults. Site carries over 23,000 calculators-
awesome covering virtually every field of interest .. -- The Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (MFDA) is the mutual
fund industry‘s self-regulatory organization (―SRO‖) for the distribution side of the
industry. The MFDA is responsible for regulating all sales of mutual funds by its
members in Canada. The MFDA does not regulate the funds or fund manufacturers. This
site contains the rules that members must abide by, enforcement actions and some useful
links . --This site is run by Associate professor of finance (York university,
Schulich School of Business) Dr. Moshe Milevsky. The site contains a number of his
papers, essays on wealth and public lectures. Material tends to be analytical and
quantitative so get your math caps on.
6 --A wonderful free personal finance website (U.S.) --According to
PC World this site is among the most inventive and trend-setting products
available…pushing the limits of technology. -- Mainstream financial news -- Loaded with introductory and fairly advanced
educational material, interactive charts , calculators , a volatile market simulator and a
glossary. ... idance.htm Site
discusses regulatory issues , industry issues and provides investor education. -- is one of the more informative mutual fund sites
in Canada. Getting the best of their free information only requires a registration. You''ll
get detailed information on most funds and analyst opinions on many. Also includes a
retirement planning calculator . -- This site contains a useful 10-minute investment fraud awareness quiz.
Questions cover topics such as investment risk, fraudulent products and the role of
securities regulators. Organized in 1919, the North American Securities Administrators
Association (NASAA) is the oldest international organization devoted to investor
protection. NASAA is a voluntary association whose membership consists of 66 state,
provincial, and territorial securities administrators in the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, Mexico and Canada. In the United States, NASAA is the voice of
the 50 state securities agencies responsible for efficient capital formation and grass-roots
investor protection. -- Website for the Ombudsman for Financial Services and Investments.
OBSI is where you bring complaints and restitution claims if the firm‘s response is
unsatisfactory. -- The official website of the Ontario Securities Commission. The
site contains a downloadable set of Regulations, proposed Rules, educational materials,
investor fraud prevention tips and enforcement case files. ... rticleid=3 --Office of the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions ( banking regulator) Investor advocacy website of Dr. P.Reeve --Site offers a lengthy list of links to articles written by
Canadian financial planners, covering just about all the nooks and crannies imaginable
within the personal-finance field. -- A U.S. award-winning public educational website covering a wide
variety of financial scams and frauds, including wacky ―prime bank‖ frauds, exotic
foreign currency scams, offshore investment frauds, tax scams, ―Pure Trust‖ structures
and more. The Hall of Investment Fraud alone is well worth the visit. Quatloos
apparently refers to a fictional currency mentioned in an old Star Trek episode. You
might also want to visit and --All about investment
scams --Site is ideal for keeping current with articles in peer-
reviewed financial journals and working papers from research centres. This site is for
truly serious students of investing. -- RCMP ‗s contribution to
understanding investment fraud. Includes a link to
7 -- Reporting economic crime on line Dedicated to retirement issues and pensions; free Newsletter --Site dedicated to retirement planning.
Provides five useful financial calculators, articles, retirement planning primer, tutorials,
glossary and a number of relevant web links. --Risk Analyzer evaluates the potential risk of your
individual securities, your overall portfolio or your watch lists to help you make
confident investment decisions. -- Interesting site if you want to learn about indexes. Some
excellent articles on investing in general. Discusses the Russell family of indexes. --This weekly compendium of newsletter articles, academic
papers plus traditional business press articles that pro-investor adviser Hans Merkelbach
posts each week -- The System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval
(SEDAR) is used to electronically file securities related with the Canadian Securities
Administrators. The Canadian Depository for Securities, through its subsidiary CDS INC.
has developed this innovative Web site to make public securities filings easily available
to all. You can use it to find and retrieve SEDAR public securities filings and mutual
fund/company profiles, annual reports and prospectuses. -- Site used to track insider stock ownership and trading -- The URL says it all. Excellent articles on investing and
financial tools . Assists investors in assessing advisor recommendations and portfolio
construction. ... eCard.aspx --The Advisor Scorecard is
one of the few places, if not the only place on the internet, where individual investors can
go to get an independent assessment of how their view of their advisor stacks up with the
view that other investors hold of their advisors. --Have you ever wondered why the CPI, GDP and employment
numbers run counter to your personal and business experiences? The problem lies in
biased and often-manipulated government reporting. This site provides commentary on
U.S. games but many of the ideas carry over to Canada. Many good articles free but for
more detail a subscription is required. The purpose of this web document is to serve as a primer
for Canadian do-it-yourself (DIY) investors who wish to manage their own investment
portfolio. --Knowing the rate of return you‘ve earned is an essential
first step - but to manage your money wisely you then have to compare the return you
actually earned with the rate of return you could have earned if you had bought a simple
couch potato portfolio. If your advisor is underperforming – and most are, you can use
this tool to identify the problem before wasting money year after year. -- The first step in managing your money wisely is simply
knowing how you‘re doing. For people who want to manage their money wisely nothing
could be more basic or make more sense than to know the rate of return you‘re earning
on your investments. This information is rarely supplied by the investment company and
this easy to use website fills a big knowledge gap.
8 -- This is the official web–site of SIPA, The Small Investor Protection
Association. SIPA is a volunteer member organization committed to fair practice in the
investment industry. SIPA was incorporated (Ontario corporation number 1327366) as a
national non- profit organization at the end of January, 1999, with headquarters in
Markham, Ontario. The site contains a library, media links, litigation and news of interest
to investors. Most resources are free to the public but some require membership. A look into socially and/or environmentally responsible
investing. This Web site also promotes and encourages socially responsible investment in
Canada. ... urces.aspx - Great portfolio tracker,
much more -- The "Asset Class Illustrator" enables
you to view a historical analysis of how an index (or a portfolio of up to 15 indexes)
would have behaved over different time periods. Using the modular set of indexes
tracked by Barclays North American Exchange Traded Funds to represent asset classes,
this tool is designed to offer a convenient means for modeling and viewing the benefits of
diversification by style, market capitalization, and even individual sector and country
exposures. Huge storehouse of academic research papers on a wide variety of topics -- StingyInvestor site is run by Dr. Norman Rothery. While it
focuses on stocks, there is some very good mutual fund content. Norm also contributes
his own musings on the fund industry. -- This is the web-site of Ottawa lawyer John Hollander. Its aim is to
educate mutual fund and stock investors who lost money as to their rights and to
encourage them to seek professional advice regarding potential restitution. Age,
leveraging, size of claim and fund switching are key indicators. An Investor Bill of
Rights is included. -- This site is run by prominent investment adviser/portfolio
doctor Hans Merkelbach. Contains some excellent material on mutual funds, financial
links and a complimentary /confidential mutual fund portfolio review. Great site for tax smart investing . Created by the Financial Consumer
Agency of Canada, The Money Belt is dedicated to teaching financial life skills — the
basics about money and the financial world in an easy-to-understand way that is relevant
to you. -- Gotta complaint with your fund dealer or mutual
fund?, based in Toronto, gives individual consumers more power
than ever before. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, it works to make sure that complaints
cannot be Ignored. When someone searches for the company/product that you
complained about, it is likely that both the company's web page and your complaint page
will come up in the search result list. -- The Bogle Financial Markets
Research Center, established on January 1, 2000, supports Vanguard founder John C.
Bogle''s ongoing work on behalf of investors. Since he stepped down as Chief Executive
Officer of The Vanguard Group in 1996, Mr. Bogle has been studying, writing, and
speaking about issues related to the financial markets and mutual funds. The site is

loaded with timely and informative articles on the mutual fund industry. Vanguard is the
lowest average fee fund Company in the U.S. and has a unique ownership structure. The
Vanguard Group® is owned by the funds and thus by the funds‘ shareholders, instead of
being controlled by an outside management firm, as most investment firms are. Vanguard
provides services to the funds ―at cost.‖ -- Wealthy Boomer Discussion Forum - This is the site
of Jonathan Chevreau, consumer-friendly personal finance columnist for the National
Post. The discussion forum is moderated by Chevreau and is lively. -- a Canadian site for things financial. Topics
include investing, budgeting, insurance, tax etc. The site also has some interesting links
and calculators. An empowering website. Light reading. Stock and option quotes, News , portfolio trackers, stock alerts

Mutual fund investors may find the following helpful in addressing their investment
American Stock Exchange New York --
Assuris ( website of the organization that protects Canadian
policyholders in the event that their life insurance company should become insolvent).
Canadian Association of financial planners Toronto --
Canadian Bankers Association Toronto ( bank industry lobbyist)--
Canadian Deposit Insurance Corp. Ottawa-- (insures bank deposits)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants Toronto --
Canadian Investor Protection Fund Toronto -- ( insures against
broker/dealer insolvency)
Canadian Securities Administrators Montreal --
Canadian Securities Institute Toronto --
Canadian Shareowners Association Toronto --
Chicago Board of Options Chicago --
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority FINRA ( U.S. SRO) Washington --
Investment Funds Institute of Canada Toronto ( fund industry lobbyist) --
MFDA Investor Protection Corporation ( insurance
against fund dealer insolvency)
New York Stock Exchange New York --
Ontario Securities Commission Toronto ( largest provincial security
regulator in Canada )
Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) Toronto

After reviewing these sites you‘ll be more financially literate , more cautious on who you
deal with and what you buy , more able to constructively challenge advisers‘
recommendations , better equipped to research financial products , more effective at
filing ( and winning) complaints if abused and better able to consider becoming a self-
confident do-it-yourself investor.

Ken Kivenko
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:32 pm


Check to see if any of the things you feel your financial advisor did wrong is mentioned on this list. If it’s not listed (there are more to list) call us and let’s discuss it.

MacGold teaches you how to identify whether you have provable specific grounds for a successful investment loss recovery action against your financial advisor. Some of these specific grounds are:

1. the lack of suitability of your investments.
2. failure to ensure that an investment, originally suitable remained suitable.
3. your financial advisors failure to construct an investment portfolio that mirrors your investment objectives and risk tolerance levels.
4. failure to learn the essential facts about you.
5. inserting incorrect information into your account opening application form that is filled out when you open up an account with your brokerage house (This is known as the Know Your Client Form or the KYC Form). The KYC is the contract between you and your brokerage house.
6. failure to conduct periodical or more ideally, annual reviews of your KYC form.
7. failure to update your KYC Form with new information such as changes in your personal, social, family or business circumstances resulting in possible new investment objectives and risk tolerance levels. These include marriage, divorce, retirement, disability, additional children, supporting elderly parents etc.
8. over-concentration in single investments or in single industry sectors.
9. lack of diversification of your investments, over a number of different market sectors so as to limit your overall risk.
10. failure to monitor the performance of your portfolio and warn you of any possible dangers such as a potential market turndown, your investments about to tank and doing nothing to stop the slide, or letting you know of any changes both positive and negative in any of your securities i.e. giving you the bad news along with the good.
11. acting without your authority i.e. where your financial advisor has not been given any discretionary authority to make decisions on your behalf without first referring them to you for your approval.
12. failure to obtain annually a written renewal of your discretionary account.
13. failure to give effect to your instructions
14. failure to insure your investments against losses (Yes, you can insure your investments against losses ------ your financial advisor should know how. Investment insurance has been around for over 40 years and this option should have been offered to you to protect you against investment losses).
15. breach of trust.
16. breach of fiduciary duty.
17. breach of contract.
18. negligence.
19. negligent misrepresentation.
20. failure to manage your expectations.
21. failed in his/her duty of care to you.
22. failure to comply with statutory regulations, industry rules, and investment standards, as well the internal policies and procedures of your brokerage firm.
23. failure to consider and to act in your best interests.
24. failure to evaluate and assess your tolerance for risk in terms of affordability, reasonableness and ability to absorb and withstand declines in the value of your portfolio from risky investments.
25. failure to explain the risks and dangers of various investments recommended to you.
26. failure to act in good faith.
27. failure to exercise reasonable and proper care, skill and diligence as would be expected of those engaged in their profession.
28. failure to comply with their undertakings, or with their representations.
29. failure to provide conspicuous, full, and fair disclosure of all important facts.
30. recommending investments not commensurate with your financial needs (i.e. altering the accounts of seniors and other investors, requiring steady income, from dividend funds into riskier investments).
31. failure to explain to you the meaning of risk, which is “how much money are you prepared, or can afford to lose”
32. failure to ensure that you understood all the risks associated with any investment recommendation.
33. misrepresented the degree of risk involved in a recommended investment.
34. failure to exercise due diligence and thoroughness in making investment recommendations based on factors including your financial situation, investment knowledge, investment objectives and risk tolerance, as well as, having a reasonable and adequate basis, supported by appropriate research and investigation, for such recommendation.
35. relying solely on representations from issuers and promoters of investment products, and not doing any due diligence themselves.
36. failure to monitor product risk.
37. failure to understand the features and risks of the investment recommended to you i.e. a breach of the “Know Your Product” rule. (This is more common than you think!)
38. looking only at statistical factors of an investment without considering other factors such as liquidity, transparency, use of leverage etc.
39. describing you as a sophisticated investor in the KYC Form when this may not be in accordance with your investment experience and knowledge.
40. marking trades “unsolicited” when they were in fact “solicited” by your financial advisor (unsolicited means that you recommended the investment to your financial investor, and solicited means that your financial advisor recommended the investment to you).
41. putting your financial advisors’ own interests before yours by choosing investments with greater commissions, or by trading more frequently than necessary, solely for the purpose of generating commissions for themselves ( known as churning) .
42. failure to monitor the performance of your investment portfolio, by giving you both the good and the bad news about particular investments.
43. failure to give you a balanced disclosure by emphasizing all the positive factors about a recommended investment, and de-emphasizing the negative ones.
44. failure to ensure that the order you phoned in, was within the bounds of good business practice, i.e. it was suitable for, you taking into account your personal circumstances.
45. failure to get a risk disclosure document signed when trading options, and a strip bond disclosure document signed when buying strip bonds, for your portfolio.
46. failure to take into account your tax situation, when making investment recommendations, i.e. if lower taxes were one of your investment objectives, then your financial advisor should have ensured that maximum advantage was taken of the dividend tax credit.
47. failure to warn you of the dangers and features of a margin account.
48. failure to consider whether your degree of leverage in margining your account was appropriate, keeping in mind your financial circumstances and the state of the market.
49. engaged in manipulative, fraudulent, dishonest or unethical trading practices.
50. failure to caution you when you suggested an unsuitable investment
51. failure to undertake a thorough and detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis of the investment recommended ensuring its suitability.
52. failure to take into account your investment horizon.
53. effected trades in your account on the instructions of a third party without having first received a power of attorney from you in favour of such third party.
54. made an illegal representation to effect a trade.
55. used high pressure sales tactics in order to induce you to buy, sell or hold a security or other investment product (such tactics frequently feature an imparting of a sense of urgency in order not to miss out on an opportunity for profit i.e. buy now before its too late, veiled promises of significant and immediate returns, hints of insider information of upcoming deals or announcements from the company to be invested in.)
56. ( if applicable to you) taking advantage of your inability or incapacity to reasonably protect your interests because of some form of infirmity, ignorance, illiteracy, age or inability to understand the character, nature or language of any matter or inability to decide whether to buy, sell or hold a security or other investment product.
57. giving you a guarantee as to the future market price of a security, future payments of dividends or interest of a security, your ability to sell a security at a stated price in the future (other than in the case of a retractable or callable security) or the listing of a security on an exchange at a future date.
58. allowed you to deal in securities which were not qualified for sale in the province in which you reside (unless such securities fall within an exemption).
59. making a statement to you which your financial advisor reasonably knew or should have known was false or misleading with the express purpose of inducing you to buy, sell or hold a security or other investment product.
60. if your investment contained bonds, failure to constantly watch the credit rating of the bond issuer, the length of time until your bond matures, the bonds interest yield in relation to prevailing interest rates, and their yield to maturity.
61. failure to avoid all personal financial dealings and in particular borrowing money from you without permission from your financial advisors employer. This could be construed as a conflict of interest since if you still had the money you could have conceivably invested it profitably elsewhere.
62. replaced your existing investment with other investments. Replacement should only take place if it is based upon the belief that your interests would be better served by the proposed new investment. Your financial advisor must ensure that you are fully aware of all the financial implications and ramifications of such contemplated replacement.
63. leading you to believe that there was no risk or chance of you losing any money by purchasing a recommended investment.
64. telling you that a security will be listed on a stock exchange or that an application has been or will be made to list the security on a stock exchange – if this is not in fact true.
65. giving you an undertaking that he/she will at a later time, repurchase or refund any part of the purchase price of a security to you.
66. exceeding the trading limits laid down by your brokerage house for your investment account.
67. engaged in false advertising and misrepresentation. Your financial advisor must not use testimonials which include misleading statements about his/her other client’s investment experiences. Such testimonials must prominently disclose all the facts and circumstances as well as any compensation paid to the provider of the testimonial.
68. persuading you to buy stocks underwritten or specially promoted by your brokerage house, when they are not suitable for your portfolio.
69. switching and churning of mutual funds (very prevalent with DSC funds using the 10% annual redemption or when the penalty period expires.)
70. the failure of your financial advisor who took over your account from your previous financial advisor, to confirm the up-to-datedness of your previous KYC and /or to draw up a new KYC form reflecting your then current position.
71. failure to disclose all real and potential conflict of interests such as when your financial advisor or your brokerage house has a financial interest in a particular stock that is recommended to you.
72. failure to ensure that all orders executed on your behalf are within the bounds of good business practice.
73. failure to tell you what special features your bonds or preferred shares investment possesses i.e. whether you bonds are callable , extendable, retractable convertible etc. or whether your preferred shares are cumulative or not.
74. failure to inform you whether any rights have been declared on any of your investments and if so whether they should be exercised, whether there are any options or warrants about to expire or generally, any new corporate developments which may affect your investments.
75. failure to deliver, or to ensure that, a prospectus was delivered, when selling a mutual fund.
76. failure to inform you of your rights of withdrawal and rescission when buying mutual funds, for example: you have 48 hours after receiving a mutual fund prospectus to change your mind and ask for your money back. In essence this is a “cooling off period”. This is of importance to investors who were “talked into” buying mutual funds and want to get out quickly.
77. operating a “Ponzi” scheme
78. failure (where appropriate) to disclose whether your financial advisor would lose his/her commission if you sell an investment before the expiry of a certain period of time in circumstances where you wanted to sell the investment during such period and were talked out of it by your financial advisor, for those reasons.
79. engaging in fraudulent misrepresentation i.e., making a representation knowing it to be false or not caring whether it is true or false, and you act upon the truth of such representation to your financial disadvantage.
80. engage in concealment- your financial advisor must not conceal any information from you that is necessary to help you make an informed investment decision.
81. giving you an undertaking that the securities commission has approved the investment merits of certain securities.
82. failure to get the necessary licence or registration to transact certain types of investments in your account e.g. options and commodities trading.
83. issued false or misleading sales communications, advertisements with the sale of mutual funds to you.
84. represented that a mutual fund’s or an investment’s past performance is indicative of its future performance.
85. gave you unrealistic expectations of future individual investment returns.
86. allowed you to have unrealistic expectations of the returns, your investment portfolio as a whole would generate.
87. failure to make full disclosure of a personal interest in a recommended investment.
88. in selecting investment for your managed accounts your portfolio manager’s failure to get your written consent in circumstances where there may have been a conflict of interest between your brokerage house and the investment/s selected for your managed account. i.e. your portfolio manager invested in the securities offered for sale by your brokerage house, or the securities of an issuer, that is related or connected to your brokerage house.
89. your mutual fund advisor failed, at least annually in writing, to request you to notify them, if the contents of your KYC form previously provided to your mutual fund advisor, or your financial or personal circumstances, have materially changed.

Your mutual fund advisor in an advertisement, client or sales communication:
90. used unrepresentative statistics to suggest unwarranted or exaggerated conclusions.
91. failed to identify the material assumptions made in arriving at these conclusions
92. contained any opinion or forecast of future events, which is not clearly labelled as such.
93. in a client communication used an image, such as a photograph, sketch, logo or graph which conveyed a misleading or untrue impression.
94. was inconsistent or confusing with any other communication that you may previously have received.
95. omitted facts, which were necessary to keep the communication from being misleading.
96. portrayed past income, gain or growth of assets that was not justified.

97. you suffered early redemption penalties to exit unsuitable investments.
98. charged you interest charges for unnecessary margin or loans.
99. charged you excessive sales commissions.
100. charged you excessive fees.
101. charged you excessive and unnecessary currency conversions.
102. you suffered undue income tax liabilities as a result of churning or unsuitable investments.
103. your brokerage house unfairly attempted to reduce your claims by offsetting losses from unsuitable investments with gains from suitable investments.
104. your brokerage house, when you made a complaint failed to advise you of the availability of the OBSI dispute resolution service.
105. you were not advised of reduced sales commissions or discounts for large purchase/holdings.
106. unduly expensive funds were purchased without advising you of alternative equivalent, but lower MER funds.
107. your portfolio’s character and make-up was a significant departure from your historical, conservative investing pattern and/or risk tolerance.
108. made exaggerated or unsubstantiated claims about management skills, or techniques, characteristics of the fund or an investment security issued by such fund.

In a sales communication which made comparisons between funds, or between a fund and certain indicators such as the Consumer Price Index, stock , bond or other indexes guaranteed investments etc. the sales communications failed to:
109. include all fact which would materially alter the conclusions, a reader would draw from the comparisons.
110. present data from the same time period for each item being compared.
111. clearly, explain any factors necessary to make the comparison fair and not misleading.
112. made unwarranted or incompletely explained comparisons to other investment vehicles or indexes.
113. in the case of a benchmark used for comparison, used a benchmark that did not exist for all or part of the period under comparison.
114. acted as principal in effecting a trade when your financial advisor could have obtained a better price for you, as an agent.
115. recommended an investment of a speculative nature with limited liquidity or marketability, such as some limited partnerships, and did not disclose this fact to you, as well as the fact that it may be difficult to find a buyer, when you want to sell your investment.
116. failed to tell you that he/she have found themselves in a situation where there is an actual or potential conflict of interest situation (which might cause him/her to give you biased or tainted advice,) and failed to get your confirmation that you were fully informed of the conflict of interest, but are nevertheless prepared to continue dealing with your financial advisor as before.
117. failed to pre-determine whether your investment objectives would be compatible with the management style of the investment manager who was going to mange your portfolio.
118. failed to tell you that when you transferred shares or other securities into your RRSP, that you would have to pay a special capital gains tax on any increase in the value of such shares and securities at the time, they were transferred into your RRSP
119. failed to ensure that all your orders were executed at the best price available
120. taking instructions from one spouse in connection with the other spouses investment portfolio without having first obtained the direct instruction or a signed trading authorization of the other spouse.
121. failed to notify you that he/she may be engaging in transactions on a principal basis.
122. purchased a security not registered or listed on any recognized exchange without notifying you.
123. passing on insider information, a rumour or a tip to you about an event which he/she states will be profitable and on that basis persuading you to buy such security, to your detriment.
124. failed to tell you that he/she was using another financial advisor on your behalf, and that the other financial advisor was paying a referral fee and that this could result in a higher commission, payable by you, on the trade because of the referral arrangement.
125. failure to tell you that you may have paid a lower commission had your financial advisor not decided to use the services of the other financial advisor.
126. failure to tell you, that the price that the other financial advisor could get you, may be higher than the securities normal price i.e. the price obtained by the other financial advisor may not be competitive.
127. failure to disclose whether he/she was acting as principal or agent.
128. failure to tell you that you were not an accredited investor, when selling you an investment that could only be bought by an accredited investor ( an accredited investor has to earn at least $200,000 taxable income per year, in the previous two years).
129. failure to tell you that the trailer fee charged in a mutual fund investment, was not in respect of a management fee, but was a continuing commission.
130. failure to tell you the hidden costs of short selling i.e. any interest or dividend earned by the security while it was borrowed, had to be paid by you.
131. failed to tell you that if you sell your Canada Savings Bonds at any time during a month, you do not receive the interest for the remaining part of that month. The worst case is selling them on the last day of a month, because then you do not get any interest for the whole of that month.
132. failure to tell you that he/she was using the cash content of your investment portfolio, to trade for himself/herself, and you suffered losses as a result thereof.
133. failure to establish whether a day trading account is appropriate for you, prior to the account being opened.
134. failure to warn you of the risks of day trading.
135. by words and/or conduct, he/she deceived you as to the nature of any transaction or as to the price or value of a security.
136. Prevented, inhibited or intimidated you from doing what you have a right to do, including raising complaints, or filing a civil court action (while you still had time).
137. failure to tell you that he/she was not allowed to solicit a discretionary account from you.
138. failed to notify you of the specific risks of investing in: options, commodities, forex, leveraged ETFs, wraps, principal protected notes, strip bonds, income trusts, hedge funds, inverse funds and segregated funds.
139. persuading you to enter into a private deal and getting you to accept his/her guarantee, that he/she will personally reimburse you for any losses, caused by his/her mistakes or misconduct, or getting you to give an undertaking that you will not file a complaint with your brokerage house against your financial advisor. This could give rise to the defence of ratification against you, if you later decide to sue for the recovery of your investment losses.
140. failed to disclose market risk, currency risk and volatility (high standard deviations and betas are indicators of excessive risk).
141. failed to tell you that leveraged ETF’s should only be invested in by experienced investors who (A) want to use the funds on a short term basis, (B) understand the risks associated with leverage, (C) understand the consequences of seeking daily leveraged investment results, (D) understand the risks of selling short, (E) intend to actively monitor and manage their investment on a daily basis, (F) are aware that the prices of leveraged ETFs fluctuate much more widely than the prices of regular ETFs, (G) are aware that the MERs are much higher than regular ETFs (they could be almost 7 times as much.)
142. failed to return your numerous telephone messages, when you wanted to give instructions to buy or sell certain securities, and by the time he/she called back it was too late. The securities you wanted sold, had dropped in value, and/or the securities you wanted bought, had gone up in value.
143. failed to tell you that wrap accounts can cost you an extra level of commissions or service fees, since you are now paying for an extra level of management.

The following indiscretions by your financial advisor may be difficult to prove, but nevertheless are wrongful acts. They may have contributed to your investment losses.
144. created or attempted to create a false or misleading appearance of active public trading in a security.
145. entering or attempting to enter into any scheme or arrangement to sell and repurchase a security in an effort to manipulate the market.
146. causing the last sale or last bid or offer for the day in a security, to be higher or lower than warranted by the prevailing circumstances, with the intent to manipulate closing price quotations.
147. making a practice directly or indirectly, of taking the side of the market, opposite to the side taken by you.
148. scalping: undisclosed selling of a security and simultaneously recommending that you buy the security.
149. bucketing: confirming a transaction where no trade has been executed.
150. arranging for a personal order or for the order of another member of your brokerage house, to rank in front of your order for the same security, at the same time, at the same price.
151. wash trade: making a transaction in which there is really no real change of ownership, but creating a false impression of trading activity.
152. withholding: buying Initial Public Offerings securities and only offering them to you when the security’s price had risen.
153. front-running: trading ahead of you ( and pushing up the security’s price) when he/she knew that you were going to place a big buy order for the security.
154. bunch trading: where a money manager buys a large block of shares and allocates different prices for the same investment among different clients, and you pay more than you should.
155. secret profits: if your financial advisor puts themselves in a position where their self interest and their duty to you conflict, they could become liable to you to account for any secret profits made, regardless of whether you suffered any loss or not.
156. delaying the posting of trades i.e. your financial advisor buys securities in advance of an expected news release that he/she feels will positively affect the company’s share price, but does not document the trade till later. If, when the announcement is made, the stock’s price goes up, he/she allocates such trades to those discretionary accounts that he/she manages, which generate the most income and business referrals. (his/her most favoured clients). However if the announcement has a negative effect on the stock and its price goes down, he/she allocates the “losing” trades to his smaller discretionary clients, who generate less income and fewer business referrals. (his/her less favoured clients).
Site Admin
Posts: 3047
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Return to Click here to view forums

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests