THANK you for reading along and for any suggested solutions to such a well organized harvest of the Canadian investing public.
“Each of the decision makers is satisfied that the test contained in the legislation, to make the decision, has been met.”
IIROC has in fact determined that such sales are in breach of its conflict of interest rules and has guided that dealers make rebates to clients. IFIIC, the fund industry trade Association has publicly stated that the discount broker channel is wholly inappropriate for selling A series mutual funds. And investor advocates have urged regulators for years to stop this investor harm.Clearly, an OEO (aka Discount brokers) cannot provide personalized advice under its registration so it should not offer A series mutual fund for sale. If it does, it should be sanctioned by the applicable regulator, IIROC.
This should not be viewed as merely a NI81-105 sales practice issue. It is a complete ethical breakdown that harms investors, the reputation of the marketplace and the financial services industry.The real issue here is some ugly combination of deceit, overcharging, mal-disclosure, misrepresentation and conflict-of-interest.
It is absolutely shameful that the CSA is asking investors to comment on the blatantly obvious and not even issuing an Investor ALERT Bulletin warning investors of their inaction and failure to protect.If regulators cannot protect investors given this arsenal of facts, there is something very wrong with our regulators.
DSC sold mutual funds are an effective way for a fund salesperson and his/her employer to make a quick buck and handcuff their clients to them for 6 or 7 years. The loser, as usual, is the trusting investor.The second issue involves the controversial Deferred Sales Charge option in the sale of Prospectus qualified mutual funds. The vast majority of mutual fund clients aren't forthrightly told about the DSC/5% upfront commission and only find out about DSC's when they need to access some of their money or see the poor performance of the fund that was recommended to them and want out.
If anything, one could argue that your reluctance to take any action serves to demonstrate that regulatory capture occurred long ago.
Can a lawyer say he/she is an attorney? No? Why not?
Can anyone say they are a lawyer? Can anyone say they are a doctor or an architect or an engineer or...
Is it not a joke that the OSC/MFDA/IIROC allow titles to be used that mislead, misrepresent and which are not approved by the legislation? Whose interests are being served by this misrepresentation?
If found to NOT be acting in good faith in carrying out their duties, the various provincial and territorial governments may not be able to claim immunity from civil suit against the commissions and governments. What if abused and/or victimized investors could not only seek criminal charges against regulatory officials, but could sue provincial governments to recover their financial damages.
“The facts pled, if true, support the inference of an improper purpose. If true, they may point to a deliberate and dishonest wrongful abuse of the powers given to a public officer.”
Could any legitimate organization, acting in good faith, design a “Client Relationship” document which cleverly omits the clear, precise and specific details of what that actual relationship is?
(sunshine list of government salaries)More than three hundred employees at the Ontario Securities Commission earn in excess of $100,000.
More than 100 people at the Ontario Securities Commission earn in excess of what the Premier earns.
Three exemptions (out of ten thousand) from memory are, Valeant Pharma, $90 Billion removed from market cap, Bombardier, $8 Bil removed from market cap in 30 days in 2018, Sub Prime mortgages exemption removed $32 Billion from Canada so banks could dump their non-lawful, poorly rated ABCP mortgage paper upon an unsuspecting public.
I have found exemptions for nearly every bank in Canada, who when offering new issue underwritings for sale to the public, if ever these new issues do not sell well and if the bank if fearful of being “stuck” with a lead balloon investment holding...what do they do? Simply apply for exemption from the cross trading restrictions in the law between bank underwriting divisions, and bank mutual fund divisions, and dump the crap product off of the bank’s hands, into the hands of the investors in a bank mutual fund...problem solved.
for the CSA to turn a blind eye to 116,000 registered dealing representatives, who falsely portray themselves to the public in a manner intended to lead (deceive) Canadians into a false belief that they are dealing with “advising representatives”, and not dealing representatives (salespersons) is tantamount to an epidemic of systemic fraud upon Canadians.
http://www.investoradvocates.ca/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194on the same day that I received the letter above from SIPA’s Stan Buell, I also received notice the Ontario Finance Minister Vic Fedeli was the guest speaker at the Advocis convention coming soon. Advocis is the epitome of self-serving financial services in my view, and for them to have obtained the ear of the Ontario Minister of Finance is saddening. Some history and track record of Advocis can be found on this site at this location:
The CSA appears willfully blind to this deception at best, and complicit to it at worst.Finally, for the CSA to turn a blind eye to 116,000 registered dealing representatives, who falsely portray themselves to the public in a manner intended to lead (deceive) Canadians into a false belief that they are dealing with “advising representatives”, and not dealing representatives (salespersons) is tantamount to an epidemic of systemic fraud upon Canadians.
Letting Canadians be deceived, and financially abused, does not appear to meet the standard of acting in good faith.It must be noted that Provincial regulators may be liable for breaches of the public trust if it can be shown they are/were not acting in good faith in their public protection capacity as government regulators.
"The CSA also adapted and promoted videos to raise awareness about new requirements under the Client Relationship Model Phase 2 (CRM2) and related changes to how advisers must report to their clients on the costs, performance, and value of their investments.”
It also illustrates where the various Provincial Securities Commissions are failing in their mandate to PROTECT Canadians.
This is tantamount to a fraudulent misrepresentation and is a failure to follow Alberta law (section 100).This has the effect of misrepresenting a financial person who DOES NOT have to place the interests of the investor first, as someone who DOES place the interests of investor’s first.
It is an illegal activity as well as an immoral one, and yet the ASC acts wilfully blind to this common practice which has the effect of deceiving millions of consumers and investors.
The total harm to Canada was just over $30 billion, making it one of the largest, (and most successful robberies in Canadian history).
I ask specifically that the government require all Securities Regulators to correct, or be held accountable to Canadians for being unwilling or unable to protect Canadians from thousands of these misrepresentations, contrary to Provincial Securities Acts.
“each of the decision makers, is satisfied that the conditions required to make the decision, has been met”.
, and in appalling example of self dealing by the banks, at harm to clients.allowing banks to dump poorly performing investment under-writings (slow selling investment products) into the mutual fund holdings of bank customers, without notice to these customers
and so on. These exemptions to our laws benefit the investment industry while allowing illegal, risky or unsafe products to be dumped off the books of investment sellers and onto the backs of unsuspecting consumers.allowing investments without proper ratings and safety, to be sold, which has resulted in billions of dollars being lost to consumers, investors, cities, towns, universities, pension funds
, and I again ask to be investigated thoroughly, by a full review of these agencies, and the proper changes put in place to ensure professional, and ethical protection of Canadian’s life savings. I would also like to be allowed to present information and answer questions of any government review of agencies such as the Securities Commissions.These acts of willful blindness to laws, and secret permissions to allow intentional violations of laws are contrary to the protective intentions of the Securities Commissions
The Alberta Securities Commission ignores public protective laws of the Alberta Securities Act at a cost to Albertans, to Alberta institutions such as the Alberta Treasury Branch, Alberta municipalities, Universities etc.
Alberta Securities Commission routinely and regularly grants “exemptive relief” from Alberta Securities laws, with no public notice, no warning, nor public input into the reasons or the risks. This also has the effect of costing Albertans millions while benefitting investment product sellers.
“each of the decision makers, is satisfied that the conditions required to make the decision, has been met”.
Return to Click here to view forums
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests