Regulator Handmaidens as Comedy?

Index of forum topics, talk to us.

Re: Regulator Handmaidens as Comedy?

Postby admin » Wed May 12, 2021 9:31 pm ... -proposal/

FSRA updates title reg proposal

The Ontario regulator proposed a central registry of title users and shorter transition periods

Screen Shot 2021-05-12 at 10.30.23 PM.png

By: Michelle Schriver May 12, 2021 12:46

The regulation of “financial advisor” (FA) and “financial planner” (FP) titles in Ontario saw some action this week, with a new consultation that includes an important update for clients: a central registry of title users.

In an update that incorporates feedback from a consultation last year, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) proposed on Tuesday that credentialing bodies be required to submit information posted on their websites to create a consolidated public registry of title users.

Based on consumer research commissioned by FSRA last fall, 60% of respondents said they’d prefer to have access to a single source that would verify whether an FA or FP were qualified to use their respective titles.

In addition to helping consumers, a single registry would help “advance the professionalism of the sector and strengthen the brand value of the FP and FA titles,” FSRA said in its update.

The creation of a central database of title users was a key consumer protection measure suggested by various stakeholders during last year’s consultation on the province’s title regulation. The new regime will require professionals who use the FA/FP titles to have FSRA-approved credentials from FSRA-approved credentialing bodies.

On Tuesday, FSRA also proposed shortening the transition periods for those who actively use the titles but didn’t hold approved credentials on or before Jan. 1, 2020. The proposed transition is now two years for FA title users and four for FP title users. Previously, these periods were three and five years, respectively.

“Shortening the amount of time that individuals who do not hold an approved credential can use the FP/FA titles will mitigate the potential for misuse/abuse of titles,” FSRA said.

In its update, the regulator also provided clarity on its supervisory approach to unregulated titles that could be confused with regulated ones. Consumer advocates have warned of the need to broadly restrict titles to avoid consumer confusion, as is done in Quebec, where the FP title has been regulated for more than a couple decades.

FSRA said variations on the regulated titles — such as “financial advisor consultant” and “financial planning manager” — could reasonably cause confusion, and it will review complaints about such misleading titles on a case-by-case basis.

Titles that would likely remain fair game ranged from the descriptive (“portfolio manager,” “asset manager,” “investment manager”) to the more expressive (“wealth coach,” “money guru,” “retirement counsellor”).

Such titles likely wouldn’t be reasonably confused with the regulated titles, FSRA said. But Neil Gross, chair of the Ontario Securities Commission’s investor advisory panel, suggested otherwise.

The FA/FP titles are “bound to be confused with any other title that evokes the notion of advice or planning about money matters,” Gross said in an emailed statement. For example, most people see no material difference between “financial planner” and “wealth counsellor,” he said.

While FSRA’s “been put in a tight spot” with the narrow remit of regulating only two titles, the regulator “needs to come to grips with all evocative titles,” Gross said.

Supervision details
In a document outlining its proposed supervisory framework for title protection, FSRA said it will review and investigate complaints about those who use a title without an approved credential and take action if warranted, such as issuing compliance orders.

Likewise, the regulator said it will review and investigate misrepresentations by credentialing bodies (CBs).

FSRA will also conduct annual compliance reviews of approved CBs based on the data they’re required to submit about their complaints and enforcement activity. FSRA said it may also conduct on-site reviews.

Annual reviews would ensure CBs continue to meet minimum standards outlined in the title protection rule, FSRA said, such as effective governance, professional standards and expertise to administer credentialing programs and oversee credential holders.

Overall, FSRA said its disciplinary processes for approved credentialing bodies and individuals may include warning letters, remediation plans, compliance orders and revocation of approval. Compliance orders will be posted on its website.

The new consultation also includes application details for CBs. Among the application revisions, the regulator strengthened language for CBs to describe how they serve the public interest by identifying, managing and addressing conflicts.

FSRA is consulting on its revisions until June 21.

Investor Advocate comment:
The leagues and leagues of industry paid financial “regulators” play a never ending game of Three Card Monty on the public. What a way to financially farm society....

Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Regulator Handmaidens as Comedy?

Postby admin » Thu May 06, 2021 8:59 am ... DrMnL2V5YQ

Screen Shot 2021-05-06 at 9.56.04 AM.png

How mutual fund salespeople in Canada who lie, cheat and steal from clients are escaping justice
Although the Mutual Fund Dealers Association has banned dozens of mutual fund sellers, a Post investigation finds that only a small minority of cases are pursued by police and prosecutors

Author of the article:Claire Brownell
Publishing date:Apr 13, 2015 • April 13, 2015 • 11 minute read • Join the conversation

Article content
Canada’s court system is hardly known for bringing criminals, especially the white-collar variety, to swift justice. Yet somehow Mark Lindsay — a mutual fund salesman who had lied to and stolen from a long list of his close friends and family — found himself on the other end of a criminal fraud sentence, before his own industry figured out how it wanted to deal with him.

[np_storybar title=”No end in sight to deal frenzy as cheap money, confidence propel M&A” link=””]

Year-to-date, deal making has more than doubled, according to Bloomberg data. In Canada, pending mergers and acquisitions transactions are up 115% so far this year. Globally, pending deals are up 117%.

While not quite back to pre-crisis highs, the value of deal making so far this year has reached the highest level since 2007

In October of 2010, the Southern Ontario-based Investors Group mutual fund salesman stood in a courtroom pleading guilty to a charge of fraud over $5,000. It would be several months later that the Mutual Fund Dealers Association would conclude that the charge covered just a small portion of the crimes it said he committed over a 14-month period ending in December 2008.

When the MFDA issued its ruling in June of 2011, it found Lindsay processed loans for clients without their knowledge, lied to clients about where their money was coming from and what he was doing with it, and forged their signatures to redeem investments early and pocket the cash. “He is a thief, forger, and liar who stole over $300,000 from his clients,” the hearing panel wrote. Those clients included Lindsay’s own grandmother. The MFDA’s file of evidence even included a confession: An email from Lindsay reading “i am guilty of all the actions noted…i agree to all allegations.”

By the time the panel ruled, an Ontario judge had already sentenced Lindsay to restitution and two years of probation (Investors Group, which was also deceived, made $400,000 in payouts to Lindsay’s clients; contacted for an interview the company responded with an emailed statement outlining its fraud-prevention policies).

But what’s notable about the case is not that the criminal justice system dealt with Lindsay faster than the industry’s regulators; it’s that the salesman ended up seeing the inside of a courtroom at all. Although the MFDA has fired and banned dozens of mutual fund sellers over the last two years — many accused of committing similar kinds of drastic deceptions that Lindsay was — a Financial Post investigation finds that only in a very small minority of cases are their cases pursued by police and prosecutors.

The MFDA maintains that it refers cases to authorities routinely. But there are those who believe that something isn’t working: That either the MFDA is not being diligent enough about collaborating with authorities to spur criminal charges, or that the MFDA’s own rules make it difficult to do so.

I’m always concerned when somebody, especially people dealing with such huge amounts of dollars, are getting away with it
In an analysis of almost 100 MFDA enforcement records over 2013 and 2014, the Post examined what happens to mutual fund salespeople who are found by the MFDA to have stolen money from clients, bullied and threatened clients into loaning them money, and forged documents to open up risky investment loans.

The analysis found 20 records where, if the MFDA’s findings were accurate, representatives engaged in behaviour sufficiently troubling as to raise the question of whether the criminal justice system should review the cases.

Only three of these cases, or 15 per cent, appear to have resulted in criminal charges being laid. Because Canada lacks a publicly accessible national database of criminal records, the analysis relied on phone calls to local police departments and inquiries with the courts, in addition to searches through online data.

The MFDA does use its regulatory power to impose fines on dealers it finds to have acted improperly. They look hefty on paper, but once it expels a member, the association lacks any real power to force payment. The regulator noted in its 2014 annual report that it was able to collect just 1.4 per cent of the $3.6 million in fines it levied that year against people who have since left the industry.

Shaun Devlin, head of enforcement for the MFDA, said the regulator always notifies police when it uncovers suspected criminal activity. “We are always looking for ways to make sure this information is brought to the attention of law enforcement officials so that can be considered and they can make a decision about what to do with those cases,” he said.

But conversations with police departments across the country indicate this is not consistently the case. The MFDA does participate in quarterly Toronto-area information-sharing meetings with members of Ontario police departments. But in Calgary, Colin Harper, acting staff sergeant of the Calgary Police Service economic crimes unit, said he has never heard of the MFDA bringing a single case to his department’s attention.

That includes the second-largest case the MFDA closed during the two-year period analyzed by the Post: a case involving an alleged $1.6 million Calgary-based fraud, adjudicated by the association in 2013. Harper confirmed the MFDA never contacted Calgary police despite the large dollar amount and considerable evidence collected by the MFDA in the course of its investigation. The MFDA says it does not comment on specific cases.

“I’m always concerned when somebody, especially people dealing with such huge amounts of dollars, are getting away with it. You get walked out of the office and that’s the only consequence,” he said. “My concern would be that they move on to another company in the same industry and perhaps do the same thing.”

Indeed, in addition to the three out of 100 that are confirmed to have been charged for significant crimes, this investigation uncovered two more disciplined MFDA members who were not charged for their behaviour with with mutual funds — but after being sanctioned went on to get in further trouble that resulted in them being charged criminally.

In the period 2013–14, the amount the MFDA claims was stolen by salespeople ranged from $3,500 to $11.6 million. The representative in the latter case, Toronto’s Paul Yoannou, was one of the three who were criminally charged. Yoannou was sentenced to six years in prison last year after pleading guilty.

(The Post’s investigation restricted its scope to cases that appeared to constitute crimes, as defined by the Criminal Code, and where it appeared that the representative should have reasonably known the behaviour would harm victims or amount to improper personal gain. Not included, for instance, were cases where mutual fund salespeople were found to have forged client signatures for the sake of convenience; but the investigation included several cases where the MFDA found representatives falsified information to get around limits on highly leveraged — and handsomely commissioned — investments.)

One of the victims of Mark Lindsay, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he didn’t want to open old family wounds, said he has discovered the low rate of criminal charges to be shocking. In that case, victims made the difficult decision to go to the police and the MFDA themselves.

“You’re talking how many millions of dollars? Why isn’t there police involvement?” he said. “But someone down the street is ripping off a senior citizen’s purse and they go chase after him? That doesn’t make sense.”

* * * * *

The Canadian Securities Administrators established the MFDA in 1998, in response to the skyrocketing popularity of mutual funds. Today, the MFDA’s 81,000 representatives handle a vast amount of the country’s wealth. As of February, Canadians had $1.2 trillion invested in mutual funds, almost one-third of their total financial wealth, according to the Investment Funds Institute of Canada.

Because mutual funds allow small investors to pool capital in professionally managed portfolios, salespeople market heavily to average, middle-class Canadians with limited investment knowledge. Investors are to trust that their mutual fund representative is an expert with their best interests at heart.

One of the goals of the MFDA’s enforcement system is to impose meaningful penalties when their representatives breach that trust.

In one case, the MFDA sanctioned Markham, Ont. representative Enzo DeVuono for what they claim was an overstatement of the income and investment knowledge of two married clients, who he then helped qualify for a leveraged investment — effectively a loan to buy more funds. One of those clients was a retired bus driver with a Grade 7 education, while the other was mentally handicapped. But Harold Geller, an Ottawa-based lawyer with McBride Bond Christian LLP who has represented both mutual fund salespeople and their clients, said even cases that appear to be examples of misrepresentation are probably beatable in a criminal court, because of the MFDA’s unclear rules and procedures.

He believes there is too much grey area in the association’s rules around what a salesperson can use to qualify a client within a certain risk category, or how to definitely qualify a client’s income and financial security — critical concepts when managing a client’s risk tolerance level. In a court of law, he said, a prosecutor would have a hard time proving a representative deliberately deceived clients to enrich him or herself, as opposed to just misunderstanding or making a mistake.

“How can you prosecute on a criminal level when the rules are so obscure?” Geller said. “The MFDA rules need a complete overhaul.”

Between 2013 and 2014 there were an additional 12 cases where mutual fund salespeople “misappropriated” client funds, as the MFDA calls it. A common method the salespeople used was to incorporate a company with a misleading name and get clients to make cheques out to it, thinking the money would be used to purchase securities.

In one case, Barrie, Ont. representative Reginald Roskaft was found to have incorporated a company called Corporate Receivables Agency and cashed client cheques made out to CRA — payments the clients thought were going to the Canada Revenue Agency for taxes. Roskaft was sanctioned by the MFDA in April 2014. Criminal charges were not laid. However, after the MFDA dealt with him, in November 2014 Roskaft went on to get into legal trouble: he was charged by police with running a Ponzi scheme. He has not been convicted and the case is ongoing.

In another case, the MFDA also disciplined Halifax mutual fund salesman Geoffrey Gaunt who it found had pressured a client to loan him money, allegedly using his control over her portfolio as leverage. Gaunt generally co-operated with the MFDA investigation, and in a letter to the association said he would “let stand the evidence” the association had compiled and, according to the MFDA, Gaunt did “not deny the Allegations brought against him.” No charges have been laid.

* * * * *

Because MFDA decisions are not backed by the same enforcement authority as a court of law, of the $12,372,500 in fines and costs levied against the 20 mutual fund salespeople disciplined in the cases between 2013 and 2014, only $20,000 has so far been repaid.

Devlin, the MFDA’s head of enforcement, said the regulator has asked provincial securities commissions for the power to enforce fine payment by non-members — or, more to the point, ex-members — but so far, it has been to no avail. He said the regulator’s most important enforcement role is suspending people who have made serious ethical breaches from the profession, with 75 per cent of the cases the MFDA completed last year resulting in a suspension or a permanent ban.

“The primary job of a regulatory agency, is to protect the public by taking them out of the regime,” Devlin said. “I think that process works very well.”

There are some practical reasons why not every criminal act described in an MFDA disciplinary hearing will result in a criminal charge. Harper, the acting staff sergeant with the Calgary Police economic crimes unit, said even with a client willing to press charges, it can be difficult to make a charge stick.

These corporate entities don’t want their dirty laundry aired in the media. Investor confidence, or client confidence, is everything
He believes that the more effective way of prosecuting salespeople found to be committing possibly illegal acts is for their financial institutions — the banks or investment groups that operate the funds — to bring the matter to police, instead of the MFDA. The bank or investment firm is, after all, another victim in a fraud case, but one with the ability to hand over valuable internal documentation.

However, Harper said he has rarely seen that happen in his nine years of experience with the financial crimes unit. Generally, these institutions opt to repay victimized clients and put the matter to rest more quickly.

“These corporate entities don’t want their dirty laundry aired in the media. Investor confidence, or client confidence, is everything,” Harper said. “If you lose that, you lose potentially millions of dollars in business.”

Neil Gross, executive director of the Canadian Foundation for the Advancement of Investor Rights (FAIR), pointed out the MFDA can proceed with enforcement hearings in situations where police can’t, such as when the accused cannot be found. Additionally, the MFDA makes findings based on a balance of probabilities — a lower standard than finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as criminal courts must do.

However, Gross said we should still be making every effort to bring people to justice.

“We certainly don’t want to be attracting a criminal element in Canada. We want there to be a sense this is a good place to set up shop,” he said. “There are good, sound policy reasons to make every effort to enforce criminal law.”

After Mark Lindsay’s victim and relative lost his money, he said people wondered how he could have allowed himself to be deceived. He now says he thinks he may have trusted too much in the system to protect investors at the time; today he doesn’t trust it at all.

“I’m not saying all agents are like this. There are bad apples in every pile,” Lindsay’s victim said. “But how do I know the guy sitting in front of me isn’t going to be one of them?”
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Regulator Handmaidens as Comedy?

Postby admin » Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:40 pm ... ummer-csa/


Screen Shot 2021-02-22 at 6.32.47 PM.png

SROs to hear their fate this summer: CSA

Regulators are weighing options for the future of the self-regulatory framework

By: James Langton February 22, 2021 12:05
rules and regulations

The future of self-regulation will be given a direction this summer, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) said on Monday.

In June 2020 the CSA launched a consultation on reforming the framework for self-regulatory organizations (SROs), attracting a slew of input — including competing visions from the SROs themselves.

The CSA said Monday that it’s “on track” to release “specific recommendations this summer” in a position paper that will “shape the future of this regulatory framework.”

The Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) has long advocated for a merger with the other dealer SRO, the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (MFDA). Last year IIROC released a paper that called for a merger while leaving broader SRO reform for consideration further down the road.

The MFDA proposed its own vision for restructuring the framework, which would feature a new SRO to oversee all registered firms while market regulation would be hived off to the provincial regulators.

Earlier this year, an Ontario task force included its own recommendations for SRO reform in a sweeping series of proposals for overhauling both the content and structure of securities regulation.

The CSA received 67 submissions to its initial consultation, which closed in October, and has been reviewing the comments.

The regulators reported that they’ve also met with specific commenters “to clarify issues raised and information provided,” and “requested and received additional data from IIROC, the MFDA and the Canadian Investor Protection Fund.”

“The CSA continues to consider other data and analysis, including but not limited to dozens of academic publications pertaining to SRO design, operations and best practices, and their applicability to the Canadian capital markets,” it said.

The proposal for SRO reform from the CSA would go out for public comment again in the summer — giving the industry, the SROs, investors and others another chance to help shape the future of self-regulation.

“The CSA is keenly aware that the culmination of its work on the regulatory framework will have significant and long-lasting impacts on investors, market participants and the Canadian capital markets,” said Louis Morisset, chair of the CSA and president and CEO of the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), in a statement.

“We are weighing and validating the issues, and considering various options for an enhanced framework that protects the public interest while ensuring fair and efficient capital markets,” he added.

(Advocate comment: The regulators are going to decide the future function and role of the regulators....) The absurdity and the clear public danger of letting foxes decide upon their own role as guardians of the henhouse is seen in the state of society today and written about in the 2020 book “Farming Humans”. It is the story of social and economic enslavement of humans, though the clever use of the foxes who we trust to guard and protect us.)

PNG last man cover image #5.png
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Regulator Handmaidens as Comedy?

Postby admin » Mon Nov 23, 2020 1:36 pm ... criticism/
Proposals to revamp OSC draw criticism

Screen Shot 2020-11-23 at 1.34.18 PM.png

OSC could see split roles for chair & CEO

By: James Langton
Source : Investment Executive November 23, 2020 00:13

When the Ontario government’s Capital Markets Modernization Taskforce makes its final recommendations next month, it will propose sweeping changes to the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC).

Walied Soliman, chair of the task force and also chair of Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, spelled out the task force’s plans at the OSC’s annual policy conference in early November. He confirmed that the task force’s final report will recommend fundamental changes to the OSC.

The task force will propose separating the OSC’s adjudicative function, rejigging the regulator’s governance and revising its mandate to include the goals of promoting innovation and competition alongside traditional objectives of ensuring investor protection and fair and efficient markets.

During the consultation phase of the task force’s work, the proposal to change the OSC’s mandate to include fostering capital formation and competitive markets was met with criticism. There were concerns that such a mandate would create new conflicts within the OSC at the expense of investor protection, which could undermine the ultimate goal of championing economic growth.

Maureen Jensen, the OSC’s most recent ex-chair and ex-CEO, attended the policy meeting. She questioned the wisdom of revising the regulator’s mandate:
“My concern is that it’s very difficult to be a regulator on one hand and to be a partner in fostering new kinds of ideas and companies at the same time.”

Jensen noted that under the OSC’s existing mandate, the regulator already is expected to consider the possible effects of its rule-making on competition and to encourage innovation as part of fostering fair and efficient markets. She said she worries that amending securities legislation to require the regulator to become a partner in industry innovation would go too far.

In particular, Jensen suggested that
playing the role of market booster and enforcer at the same time could be tricky

“What happens when you begin fostering certain kinds of start­ups or funds, for example, and then something happens, and you have to be the regulator of those funds? You’re really, truly not independent,” Jensen said.

The risk of tilting the balance between investor protection and market efficiency too sharply in favour of promoting growth was raised by the Canadian Coalition for Good Governance (CCGG) during the consultation on the task force’s initial recommendations.

The CCGG’s letter warned that relaxing requirements to make raising capital easier for issuers in the short term could backfire if those same companies fail, taking investors’ money with them and ultimately denting economic growth. The CCGG’s letter pointed to the 2008-09 global financial crisis as an example of this sort of folly and warned against pushing the OSC too heavily toward promoting issuers’ interests.

Not all former chairs of the OSC were against expanding the regulator’s mandate. Howard Wetston (chair and CEO from 2010 to 2015), for example, is less bothered by the idea. Given that the OSC already plays a role in fostering competition, he argued during the conference that there’s nothing wrong with being more transparent.

Wetston said a legislative amendment to ensure that the OSC considers competition when making policy would be “a very significant thing to do because I think it will be a way of advancing our markets, growing our markets [and] growing our economy.”

Soliman told the conference that regulators in the U.K. and Australia, for example, already have pro-growth mandates. He said these mandates allow them to “reduce systemic barriers to growth, including fees and anti-competitive behaviour.”

Alongside a revised OSC mandate, Soliman said, the task force’s final report also will propose separating the OSC’s tribunal from its regulatory function, while also separating the OSC’s chair and CEO roles.

“We envisage, in short order, a capital markets authority with an oversight and governance board, an independent chair, and a CEO with executive and regulatory responsibility for the OSC. We envisage a separate adjudicative body of administrative experts,” Soliman said.

The same thing was proposed in 2004, following a review by Justice Coulter Osborne. In fact, the same model is proposed for the Cooperative Capital Markets Regulatory System (CCMR) — if and when that effort gets off the ground.

While there’s not much optimism about the CCMR coming to fruition — at least, in the short term — Soliman said that the task force’s final recommendations won’t impede the creation of the CCMR.

“In fact, we are excited at the prospect of additional recommendations that we feel will set the stage much better for a future national regulator,” Soliman said.

In the meantime, David Brown, who was chair and CEO from 1998 to 2005, said he’s concerned about how such a separation could affect the OSC’s standing with the courts and, ultimately, the OSC’s ability to regulate.

Currently, securities regulators are accorded a lot of deference from the courts because the former are seen as experts, Brown said, adding that he worries that separating adjudication could erode this expert status — and thus judicial deference. That erosion could leave the OSC open to more second-guessing of its decisions in court, inviting more litigation and ultimately complicating enforcement, Brown said.

“I think keeping the tribunal as part of the [OSC] is very much a part of the structure. I think it’s working, and I think it would be a mistake to separate it out,” Brown said.

Veteran securities lawyer Phil Anisman has long advocated against separating the OSC’s tribunal from other components of the regulator’s mandate. In his submission to the task force, Anisman argued that there’s a significant benefit to housing policy-making and adjudication within the same agency.

When the OSC’s commissioners are involved in developing regulatory policy, they have a better understanding of the purpose of the rules, Anisman noted. This policy knowledge can help inform the OSC’s efforts to protect the public interest in their rulings, he suggested. At the same time, Anisman’s letter suggests, the OSC’s experience hearing cases can also help shape policy-making: “The benefits of this cross-fertilization have long been recognized.”

Back in 2004, the Osborne committee heard many of the same arguments and ultimately recommended that the OSC’s adjudicative function be separated. In making that recommendation, the committee cited concerns about the perception of bias that comes from an integrated tribunal. The government at the time accepted the recommendation, but never acted on it.

Time will tell if today’s government is prepared to follow through on the task force’s recommendations.
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Regulator Handmaidens as Comedy?

Postby admin » Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:09 am

Image 11-25-17 at 10.39 AM.jpg

I was pondering the puzzle of the ‘public deception game’ played by the OSC in their latest “get Smarter about money” video. The one where they tell people to check their registration and yet fail to reveal the hidden tricks involved…(tricks like finding out HOW a person is registered (are they a doctor or a nurse, for example) is far more important than telling people to check IF registered whilst not telling them what they are registered as)

To my mind it is the epitome of ‘unskilled’ regulatory behavior and perhaps indicative of a captured, handmaid regulator.

I find it a challenge to “spot” the flaw, understand it, and be able to turn it from a negative into a positive, and by positive I mean, “how can we use their “design flaws” to improve Canadians lives, financially?”

I really like this last video where they waste 1 min and 49 seconds of anyones time, whilst providing nothing but protection for themselves and for the industry, while doing harm (deception) to Canadians.

Below are three or four proposed messages that I began drafting, in order to try and whittle the issue down, shorter and more concise each time, until it is something that the average Joe public, or member of parliament would look at and “get it” instantly.

It is a 'Rick Mercer rant' kind of an opportunity Deb, and I would like to know if you have any thoughts on how to make it cut through all the industry bullshit…here the drafts I wrote so far:

#1 PONDER THIS PUZZLE…..1 min 49 seconds of your life that you will NEVER get back...but if you take the time to view it, you might discover what paying millions and millions of dollars to securities regulators will buy you. Regulator capture when the #Ontario #Government is actually #hiding the true license/registration behind a facade of being registered…YES they are registered… salespersons (the hidden part) ... ou-invest/

#2 Handmaids Tale…
In a game of cat and mouse, the #OSC Ontario Securities Commission and 12 others in Canada play their handmaid role well. Endlessly telling the public to check the registration of the 120,000 “advisors” in Canada…while hiding from them the true registration category of so called “advisors”…hmm. #FINRA plays same cat and mouse game to farm 100 million #Americans ... ou-invest/

#3 The irony of the #OSC “GET SMARTER ABOUT MONEY” campaign is how they work against the public being able to get smarter about money…they hide the exact registration category of tens of thousands of so called “advisors” so #investors won’t know they dealing with commission salespersons…handmaidens, hand paid and hand picked by banks ... ou-invest/

#4 Imagine living in a world where government regulators are paid to pretend to protect you, while wasting your time and your money by hiding from you the most essential lies that harm you. This 2 minute #OSC video well illustrates the concept of regulators as industry handmaidens. Telling #investors to check their advisors registration whilst hiding the facts and the actual registration itself. Millions of dollars are paid to this regulator, and yet the joke is on #investors… ... ou-invest/
Site Admin
Posts: 3068
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 1 guest