[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 1002: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone.
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 1002: getdate(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone.
GET YOUR MONEY BACK! Misconduct and malpractice. Investment industry "best and worst practices". Information to improve public protection. Expert witness services for industry and investors. Forensic investment analysis. • View topic - what/who this forum is intended to serve

what/who this forum is intended to serve

Index of forum topics, talk to us.

Re: what/who this forum is intended to serve

Postby admin » Thu Aug 07, 2014 10:28 am

Bok_VDbCEAAXCjo.jpg
updated Aug 7, 2014 to the four simple and basic elements of investor exploitation that are fairly easily provable. This reflects the what and why of this site:

1. Just 2% of added fees will cut your future investment pool by HALF, over the long term.
2. A majority of the investment industry is cleverly designed to gain this extra 2% from customers using deceit.
3. One example of deceit is pretending and implying that their commission sales agents are professional "advisors" and are obliged to "do no harm" to the investment customer. (not true)
4. A second deceit is a pretence that regulators are overseeing the industry and protecting the public from systemic financial exploitation (not true)

A hundred other such examples are contained within the flogg postings herein.

Just click on "CLICK HERE TO VIEW FORUMS" link above, and you will find just over 40 topics pertaining to "systemic financial exploitation and abuse" of investment customers, BY "trusted" investment dealers.

Millions of north Americans are thus fooled and cheated out of tens of billions of dollars each year (Keith Ambaschteer, U of T, study one example) with false beliefs and misconceptions which are promoted by the industry and their paid "regulators". The result is a form of quasi-legal, institutionalized "money laundering", moving money from the hands of investment customers, into the hands of clever, well connected investment dealers.

OB-DC897_100day_H_20090211195012.jpg
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: alberta

Re: what/who this forum is intended to serve

Postby admin » Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:22 pm

Screen shot 2011-09-13 at 8.22.21 PM.png
How much is a Trillion dollars by the way?

If you had the foresight to start a business venture at the time when Jesus was born........and if that venture was a great money making venture, making one million dollars each and every day, day in and day out................and if that business was still running today, some 2000 years later, and still had made $ 1 million each day for 2000 years..........you would still have another thousand or so years to wait before the total earnings added to the one Trillion dollar mark.

Now go back to the previous post and re-read it, and educate yourself and your loved ones on why some of our beloved Canadian financial institutions can show nearly $1 billion dollar profits in three month periods. It is coming right out of the pockets of every Canadian, and into the hands of those "trusted" folks. Not always honestly I am afraid.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: alberta

Re: what/who this forum is intended to serve

Postby admin » Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:13 pm

20080108121139_00018.jpg
To say I am disturbed would be an understatement. Those of you who wish to say that I am truly "distrubed", that is fine with me. I am entitled. I just say that what I have been witness to is disturbing, and as as Victor Frankl said in "Mans Search for Meaning", "there are things which must make a man lose his reason, or else he has none to lose".

I have witnessed somewhere close to one trillion dollars skimmed, scammed or stolen from trusting and vulnerable investment industry customers and savers, during my career. Not by the criminal element which we have a police force to capture, but by TRUSTED MEGA CRIMINALS who operate at the very top of our economic food chain.

It is as fascinating as watching a slow motion train wreck (and as upsetting) to see an entire industry (and an entire support system) that works so much like a well oiled machine to harvest or capture more of the money of Canadians. I simply cannot look away and ignore fraud so well organized and of this magnitude.

I am talking about CEO's, investment bankers, lawyers, regulators, accountants, industry members, professional associations, media sellers, etc., etc. People who, if this were the United States, would be the highest paid "Goldman, Morgan, AIG, Bank of America" type of people. I mention the USA examples to reinforce just the possibility that this might occur in trusted professionals.

Having this happen in Canada and getting an inside, ringside seat in observing this, has been a maturing process, an eye opening process, and a disturbing process. Imagine finding out that the very people you looked up to the most, respected the most, and counted on, were predators, preying on people them most.

That is what I have discovered here in my country. But alas, I live in a country where "polite" is the keyword. Where we do not "make a fuss", no matter how badly we may be violated. We may even apologize to those who violate us..................

(by the way, regarding the one trillion dollars, I can count this on about three fingers. One is Nortel, a $366 billion dollar value "erased" due to corporate fraudsters and their accounting tricks etc.
Two, $25 billion each year in mutual fund fee gouging (U of T Rotman School study, "The $25 billion dollar pension haircut", by Keith Ambaschteer, multiplied by 30 years I have followed the game = $750 billion. There, two fingers counted and I am over one trillion.
Third finger would be the Columbia University study by Prof John Coffee, stating that 13 securities commissions in Canada is costing Canadians about $10 billion each year from their burden. I might add hundreds of more billions cost by those same commissions in unethical and conflicted selling out the public interest to their friends in the investment industry. $10 billion per year times 30 years = $300 bil

Bingo, I am getting close to $1.5 trillion in financial violence to Canada, by our smartest, richest, most "Conrad Blackish" elements in my 30 years. I have not even started in on a count of the specific investment names, Bre-x, Income trusts etc., etc. Posted elsewhere in this forum.

Did you know that police and other authorities do not even keep a count or an official estimate of the extent and amount of financial crimes like this?

Why would they? A Conrad Blackish type can do more financial violence than thousands and thousands of individual blue collar criminals, and still avoid prosecution here in Canada. Nice work if your stomach can handle it............All the money you can steal and never a single prosecution over about the $100 million mark.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: alberta

Re: what/who this forum is intended to serve

Postby admin » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:00 pm

I worked from 1984 to 2004 inside the investment industry. I spent the first ten years just learning the game and trying not to drown in the financial markets. The last ten I found success with clients that trusted me and I placed respect for that trust as my highest priority.

When I found my collegues in the business abusing their clients for commissions etc, I spoke out to management. I was naive in thinking that they would care about the reputation for our company (RBC). They did not. I found that they cared more about commission revenue, and bonus payments. Boy, was I young and foolish.

I took my battles for investment ethics and integrity all the way to the top, and then to securities commissions and beyond. I learned a great deal about corporate abuse and retaliation.

'I finally left in 2004, after having it slowly sink in that white collar crime and abuse of customers is "standard industry practice" and not something to be talked about. It was time for me to leave.

I began to write (blog) about my experience, as I still refused to believe that financial abuse was tolerated and accepted so widely. My early musings are found at http://www.investoradvocate.blogspot.com
I thought I was dealing with bad salesmen, bad sales managers and bad CEO's bent on personal gain. Crimes in the millions of dollars found in any investment office in Canada.

When a young investment employee out west committed suicide over terrible legal and corporate retaliation for speaking out similarly, I became motivated to better document my experiences in hopes it could help others. That brought about

http://www.breachoftrust.ca

a doc film project that was shot in 2005 and nearly ready for an audience of people interested in white collar crime or investment abuses from an industry insider. I was now dealing with crimes in the hundreds of millions of dollars and crimes in which securities regulators helped to succeed. (this may be a key factor of interest to those needing to get their money back by civil action)

I continued to write, and in about 2006ish I started a web forum http://www.investoradvocates.ca and after having it hacked, attacked and badly used by industry individuals who did not want my message in the public eye, I tightened it up to not allow posts without coming through the moderator first, and I worked to keep topics small in quantity and larger in quality. I hope it worked. I now call it a "flogg". (forum/blogg) and it is found at http://www.investoradvocates.ca

I am now collecting data and trying to keep track of it all, and the categories on this flogg help a bit. You will see that now I can point to crimes as large as $32 billion (again with regulatory assistance) and also to crimes of finance adding up to more than every other crime in the country, combined. Every year.

I stood on a lot of good people's shoulders to get to this level of experience, and I truly hope that people can use what I have to their benefit.

I offer my experience strength and hope freely to all who can use it and I hope I am giving abused and violated investors a glimmer of hope. Hope is one of the key elements of a decent life and it is one if the things that is often stolen by crimes of finance. If I can be of help from my background of industry, I am happy to help.


take care and do not stop fighting until you have been made whole, whether by the advisor who failed you, the regulator who failed all of us, the police who did nothing, etc., etc.

I have learned that the financial (and regualtory, and political, and police) industry acts all powerful, and can at times be a very bad bully to protect it's own narrow interests. The ONLY thing I have seen to work against this kind of bully is to stand together, in numbers, stand firm, and make some real noise in public to point out their abusive behavior. Alone and silent is the way to certain and continued abuse. Best wishes to you.
Larry
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: alberta

Postby admin » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:06 pm

we are not a chat room

this is for experienced, capable, and dedicated investment industry people or commentators who have a demonstrated track record of credible commentary about the inner workings of the industry.

It should go without saying, but we also have a preference to see the inner workings improved for the benefit of all.

Needless to say, we are vehemently opposed by some in the industry who would prefer that nothing change. They may like it just the way it is.

We are happy to offer or expertise and discussion freely to those who are not being well served by and industry that prides itself in promising to serve clients well. Contact is at investoradvocates@shaw.ca and we will correspond with you about your situation. Since we have been on both sides of the fence, and have no vested interest in either, we are usually able to see a bit wider perspective on a given situation.

If you truly have been not well served, or in fact taken advantage of, as sometimes happens in any industry, we will assist you free of charge in getting you some help or recourse. That is what we do. Glad to help.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: alberta

Postby admin » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:47 pm

to those who say that speaking out is a waste of time. That nothing is being accomplished, I say this.

Look at the currents of change taking place in the Canadian election right now. Change of a magnitude never before seen as a result of people being educated, informed, and interested in how their institutions serve them. A web log in the UNited States had the courage to defy the canadian media ban on Gomery proceedings, and look at the entire result of this.
Public scandal, that would have otherwise been buried. Ethics at front and center of the news. Maintream media in a frenzy over everything from Gomery to Income Trusts and insider trading.

No, I disagree that speaking out is a waste. those who have done so have changed history in Canada, and they know we have only seen the smallest tip of the iceburg yet. There is more to come, and credible, sensible advocates are moving together, and standing on the shoulders of those who stood before us to make things better.

thanks to them. they know who they are
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: alberta

Postby admin » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:41 pm

i am considering tightening up on the comments on investoradvocates.ca

i am now aware of a number of things that might not contruibute to the
quality of the site, and I have now come to the realization that it is, and
should be a site to serve as an intelligent reference site for media and
politicians who want to learn about the "other side" of the industry. I am
trying to avoid having it become a busy "chat" forum where the information
chatted about is high in volume and low in quality. Rob's investorvoice.ca
is the best reference library, and I hope to compliment this site with a
good discussion site.

I direct reporters and other interested parties (politicians, etc) to the
site, and i refer to it as a, "web log, and discussion forum on topics of
investment abuses". I have allowed other comment, and even some unique
critics comments in an effort to test the arguments, debate the issues, and
polish the logic applied to some of our thoughts. I would, however like to
avoid the "chat" atmosphere at all costs. It is time filling, but not value
adding to the cause and the arguments I wish to highlight. (no offense to
Joe K, but I find important, busy and influential people, have no time and
or interest in long winded verbage or spending time hunting through "stuff".
I want to get "right to the point")

In this effort I would like input on how to reduce the volume of commentary.
I would prefer to see focused, succinct, informed comment on investment
abuses and industry faiures. I would prefer to move from the ability to
comment anonymously, to a more recognized level of participation.

so, to repeat my initial premise "i am considering tightening up on the
comments on investoradvocates.ca", and the reasons. Reasons are that I
have no interest in hosting the largest discussion forum on the net. I seek
to host one of the best sites where people can go and get information and
answers without having to sift through miles and miles of verbage.

tell me how I can do this, and i will start to put some measures in place

thanks
advocate
larry elford
investoradvocate@shaw.ca
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: alberta

Postby Guest » Wed Nov 30, 2005 5:39 pm

The post above, when combined with IDA, and Securities Act's in Canada still suggest to me that many salespersons are in fact "misrepresenting" themselves to clients when they claim trusted advisor status, or even simply advisor status. If it were me, I would be asking my MP to put more emphasis on corporate ethics, integrity and accountability during this election period.

I still could be wrong in my reasoning, as has happened before, but at least my heart is in the right place.

Where is it? It feels sympathy for 92 year old Norah Cosgrove, who felt duped by her former friend and RBC "advisor" in Ottawa and took them to small claims court for $10,000. RBC statement of defense filed in court stated that at no time did they feel they owed the duty of care of a fiduciary to this client. (Ontario court of justice, small claims court file 03-sc-083313) (this defense despite the fact that they allowed misrepresentation to the client that her registered salesperson was an "advisor". And despite the fact they fired the said salesperson for some misconduct. They still failed to make the client whole)

YOU FIRST!!

I also feel sympathy for Marion Hunt in a case between her, her late husband Mel, and thier broker TD Evergreen.
Although TD was found guilty of selling thier BCE shares without having authority to do so, the real low blow to the elderly clients was TD's claim that the Hunts trust that they placed in TD was not warranted because they did not open a disretionary account. In other words, "since you did not give us complete authrity to trade your account as we see fit, we do not feel we owe you a duty of trust".

Mel Hunt died before getting any satisfaction for this deception, and his wife has had no better success.


Welcome to the world of multi million dollar advertising by firms saying that the "client comes first", followed by multi million dollar spending on lawyers to cover up when the "firm puts itself first".
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:50 pm

further info from a recent IDA member bulletin about the NAME GAME. (the practice of advisors calling themselves a title they are not qualified to hold in order to better seduce customer

Update October/05, after finding IDA and MFDA sending out notices to members to add clarification on this topic:

MR0349 - Officer and Business Titles
MEMBER REGULATION notice TORONTO Suite 1600, 121 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5H 3T9 Telephone: (416) 364-6133 Fax: (416) 364-0753 CALGARY Suite 2300, 355 Fourth Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 0J1 Telephone: (403) 262-6393 Fax: (403) 265-4603 HALIFAX Suite 1620, TD Centre, 1791 Barrington S
/files/regulation/mr_notice/mr0349_en.pdf


This PDF notice suggests that "employees of IDA member firms may not use an "officer" title (quotes mine) that suggests he or she is registered in a capacity in which he or she is not in fact registered.

(why only applied to "officers" of IDA firms? Is it perhaps due to the fact that nearly "every" salesperson in Canada who works in an IDA firm, is representing themselves by a title (investment advisor) that they are not in fact registered as?

To confirm, find the registration category of your own salesperson in the OSC or the IDA web site. You will find thier business card title is not the same as what they are registered as.

This info comes from a good article by Philip Porado in Sept 2005, ADVISOR's EDGE REPORT, page 6, titled NAMES PEOPLE PLAY.
(Title inflation by todays investment salespeople to (mis) represent themselves and market themselves better to trusting clients)
Well done Philip, good article, great title.

PS. After sending requesgt to clarify if salespersons are subject to this rule, I received the following response from the IDA:

To: wdlilva@ida.ca
Wendyanne D'Silva, Director of Registration, Investment Dealers Assocaition of Canada

re: member regulation notice MR0349 second request


I was just writing about MR 0349, notice of registration category verses title used . After reading an article in ADISORS EDGE REPORT, Sept, 2005, titled "NAMES PEOPLE PLAY"

Is there a reason that this notice refers only to officers etc, and not to persons registered as salespersons? Are they under a separate notice suggesting similar requirement to use title based on registration?

thanks very much for your clarification

response:

MR notice 349 refers to "employees of IDA member firms" which applies to officers, salespersons and non-registered individuals.
________________________________
Wendyanne D'Silva
Director, Registrations
Investment Dealers Association
wdsilva@ida.ca
phone: (416) 865-3032 / fax: (416) 364-9177
Guest
 

Postby Guest » Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:35 pm

this forum is for people who cannot stand bullies.

People who abuse others are simply bullies, whether it be on the playground, in the office, or any setting.

Financial abuse is a practice of bullies taking advantage of an imbalance of strength, experience, knowledge or other, to take advantage of the more vulnerable party to the transaction.

When it is done by so called professional investment advisors it is fraud, and criminal.

In my experience, Canada has no protection against the more subtle, yet pandemic forms of investment abuses, but they are starting to (with the help of venues like this) come to light, and the public is starting to be warned of the abusers out there. Canada has financial regulation in "pretense only", where the regulators pretend to do the job, while actually allowing 90% plus of the abuse go unchecked.

The only way to beat a bully is to stand up to them, to fight them, to refuse to allow them to operate without being accountable for their actions. Report them. Sue them. Charge them with criminal offense where appropriate. Do whatever is neccessary to prevent them from continuing to abuse and hurt people. To take advantage of others simply because of your strength, size, or ability to get away with it is simply unnaceptable.
Guest
 

Postby admin » Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:37 pm

Continuing a short tour of some of the rules and regulations surrounding the use and or misuse of the “advisor” title, as it is either used or misused by a large majority of investment salespersons in Canada.

Starting with this OSC web site:
http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/Dealers/Regist ... s.html#857

This site gives us a glimpse into the more than one thousand (yes,1000) registration categories in the investment industry

1 Category number one, “advisor” is found in approximately NONE of the fifty five pages of registrants at the largest investment firm in the country.


2 Category number 1083 (salesperson)is by far and away the most common category of registration found at this same firm.

And yet, most of the registered salespersons at this firm are claiming the title of “advisor” on their business cards, their web advertising, and their promotions, and have done so since shortly after 1987 in an effort to improve or alter the public image and the marketing results of their sales job.

http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/Dealers/Requir ... rities.jsp

For each individual seeking registration in an advising capacity, we require confirmation of education and investment experience to demonstrate that the relevant proficiency requirements of OSC Rule 31-502 have been met; i.e. the requirements of either per s. 3.1 of Rule 31-502. The details should be provided in the proficiency and employment sections of the 33-109F4. The individual should include letters from previous supervisors, or, in the alternative, the contact information for those supervisors, to confirm the investment experience. This information should be provided in paper format to the Registrant Regulation Section of the OSC.

http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/Regulation/Rul ... 02rule.jsp

(From this page we see the proficiency requirements for advisors, in short, they need to be finished the CIM course or partly finished the CFA course etc. to call themselves this title)

PART 3 PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR ADVISERS
3.1 Securities Advisers and their Representatives, Partners, Officers, Branch Managers and Compliance Officers
(1) An individual shall not be granted registration as a securities adviser or a representative, partner or officer of a securities adviser unless
(a) the individual has been granted registration previously as a representative, partner or officer or an associate partner or associate officer of a securities adviser, investment counsel or portfolio manager or as a securities adviser, investment counsel or portfolio manager;
(b) the individual has
(i) completed the Canadian Investment Manager Program or the first year of the Canadian Financial Analyst Examination Program, and
(ii) established that the individual performed research involving the financial analysis of investments for at least two years under the supervision of a registered adviser; or
(c) the individual has been granted registration as such by his or her principal regulator, as that term is defined in National Instrument 31-101 Mutual Reliance Review System for Registration, and that registration has not been suspended or terminated.
(2) An individual shall not be designated by a securities adviser as the compliance officer under section 1.3 of Rule 31-505 Conditions of Registration or as a branch manager under section 1.4 of Rule 31-505 Conditions of Registration unless the individual has been granted registration previously as a representative, partner or officer of a securities adviser, investment counsel or portfolio manager.


“After two decades, I have yet to meet a registered salesperson, calling themselves an advisor, who had actually completed the requirements necessary to lay claim to the “advisor” title. Yet it was used extensively, as mentioned above, for marketing reasons.”

“It was (and is today) misused, in my opinion, in order to lead clients into the false sense of security that they were not dealing with self-interested salespeople, but instead were dealing with client-interested professionals. It was used to lend credibility and trust to client relationships that were then often abused and used to pursue the greatest sales commissions for the occasional bad sales rep. In addition, most of the firms advertising and promotion supported this trusted professional stance.”

“However, when push came to shove, as it did when 92 year old Norah Cosgrove of Toronto took RBC to task in small claims court, their statement of defense spoke to the truth and spoke volumes about the misleading aspect of claiming trusted professional status:

RBC stated something to the effect that at no time were they acting in a fiduciary capacity and they felt they owed “no duty of care” to this and presumably all other RBC clients. See Ontario Superior Court, Small Claims action # for the exact wording of their statement of defense.”

“In summary, firms may talk the talk (when talk is easy), but fail to walk the walk. And when called onto the carpet by this disgruntled 92 year old client, to use one public example, they may recant even the talk. I maintain that use of the title, “advisor” on investment salespersons business cards commits each and every one of them to a fiduciary level of responsibility to the client, and to claim anything less is misleading and damaging to the public interest. This fiduciary level of responsibility to the client should and could be used by class action lawyers to obtain redress and compensation for all clients over the past decade or two, who have received a sales pitch by sales people, rather than the professional investment advice, as the firm and the representatives promised instead.”

“For a look to the future, and the potential size of the actions possible towards these firms, see the NASD web site and investor alerts: http://www.nasd.com/web/idcplg?IdcServi ... odeId=1249



In July 2002, NASD charged a broker with securities fraud involving, among other abuses, purchasing large volumes of Class B shares that kept his customers from taking advantage of the lower sales charges available through different classes of shares.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: alberta

Postby admin » Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:26 am

relevant portion of securities act pasted below..........now if you will bear with me, I will go looking for the specific educational requirements neccessary to call oneself (or to register oneself) as an advisor/adviser. When I find it I will paste it. I believe it is at IDA or OCS site. Forgive me if my logic is wrong but I feel there is a case to be made for misrepresentation of a professional title by some.
cheers

Part 5 — Registration

Persons who must be registered
34 (1) A person must not

(a) trade in a security or exchange contract unless the person is registered in accordance with the regulations as

(i) a dealer, or

(ii) a salesperson, partner, director or officer of a registered dealer and is acting on behalf of that dealer,

(b) act as an underwriter unless the person is registered in accordance with the regulations as an underwriter, or

(c) act as an adviser unless the person is registered in accordance with the regulations as

(i) an adviser, or

(ii) an advising employee, partner, director or officer of a registered adviser and is acting on behalf of that adviser.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: alberta

Postby Guest » Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:02 pm

Thanks. Actually, would you mind cutting and pasting here that section of the "Securities Law"? I'd like to see exactly how it words this.
Guest
 

Postby admin » Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:04 am

I am simply going by the law as written in the Securities Act. Section 34 says to be registered as an advisor you need a CFA. I have not yet met a CFA who is selling securities in Canada, although out of the thousands selling, I know there will be a few (dozens maybe even) . Most CFA's I have met are in research or analysis.

Interestingly CFA's have the lowest record of compliance or customer complaints in the industry. (I am not a CFA by the way, so I am not beating my own drum)

So my comments come from Securities Law in Canada, and complaint stats from CFA assn.

thanks for allowing me to clarify

advocate
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2810
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: alberta

Postby Guest » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:26 am

The CFA website says there are 9897 CFA's in Canada. It also says that 14% operate as "investment advisers".

So if you think that you need a CFA to act as an advisor, WOW these 1385 Canadian CFA's are going to be busy being the only financial advisors in Canada! If you are interested in small investor protection, a move like that would effectively cut out any client under $20MM from having an "advisor", don't you think?

Why, in your opinion, does a CFP not count as a financial advisory designation?
Guest
 

Next

Return to Click here to view forums

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron