Labour-sponsored venture capital funds

Discuss your favourite picks, broker, and trading or investment style.

Postby smelly » 17 May 2006 19:46

Norbert Schlenker wrote:I agree that knowing the correct ACB is important when it comes to taxes but that holds true for every investment, not just LSIFs. Should every article in the paper that deals with securities sales provide details on how to fill out Schedule 3 next April?


Any articles in papers like the Post? Absolutely. Once again I have to remind you guys that there are lots of very unsophisticated people reading this paper. It’s a national news publication with a finance section. This paper is intended for general population consumption. It’s not an investment newsletter where a level of knowledge can be assumed. Working schlubs on an assembly line, office clerks as well as Doctors and other professionals read this paper. And a lot of them don’t know their ACB from a whole in the ground. So when they are encouraged to sell a seemingly losing investment they are very unlikely to be able to accurately calculate exactly how their investments have actually done and what their realized capital loss will be. What’s basic knowledge to you guys, like adding commissions to the cost and keeping track of dividends, generates a blank stare when you tell most of these people. Knowing that the tax credit has to be deducted from the original purchase price on a LSIF? I’d estimate one in a thousand buyers know that. Only two people here said they knew and I seriously doubt the author did. So ya, I think it’s important to ensure that readers know how to calculate ACB when a journalist recommends a sell. A potential capital loss is likely a major factor when someone decides to unload an investment. Blowing it by 30% is hugely significant to the decision as well as a big deal when CRA rolls back the capital loss that was supposed to offset a capital gain.

Norbert Schlenker wrote:It happens. It was a busy day and I was skimming. :oops:


No problem. I understand. I do it too sometimes.

Norbert Schlenker wrote:It's gossip.


And that makes it OK? Can I get equal time and get some gossip about the author published here? I doubt it. More proof that there’s a double standard.

Norbert Schlenker wrote:Send him an invitation. You have his email address. If he won't, then I'm happy to discuss it even though I don't have the advantage of having seen the original piece.


He’s never accepted challenges before so I doubt he would now. And anything short of a face to face and it would be a sham. Nope, just him. And it would have to be him, without any feed from his buddies. Besides, the ACB thing was the major one. Other than that there’s the “gossip” as you so innocently characterize it, the absence of a ROR chart based on net cost and his lack of explanation regarding the reasons for the high MERs. I also don’t have much respect for his vacillation regarding the merits of the asset class - “I doubt I’ll be buying any more labour funds”, “which is why I didn’t dump all my LSIF holdings”.
User avatar
smelly
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 23:26
Location: Windsor ON

Postby dagan » 18 May 2006 00:25

[Restored from backup 2006-07-18]

I heard that redemptions of LSIFs skyrocketed today on the news.

No?

Maybe people understand more than smelly likes to assume.

What exactly is the worst that happens? A couple of phone calls to advisors for clarificatin? The unfairness! Wait, I thought that this was their job. Maybe a couple of DIYs that don't know as much as they thought sold some funds? In a universe of information, this was likely not the sole reason.

So, did redemptions spike or what?! Nothing like some facts to screw up a perfectly good argument?
dagan
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
 
Posts: 476
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 15:25
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Postby smelly » 18 May 2006 12:27

Well Dagan, it may be a joke to you or it may only matter to you if a lot of people get hurt but to me it's important even if one person gets hurt financially by bad advice no matter what the source. Maybe you aren't passionate about anything. Maybe you've always worked in an environment where you're far removed from your end clients or you've never known what it's like to have people rely on your expertise or had face to face discussions with real people after they've experienced financial difficulties, self inflicted or otherwise.

I've polled my peers about financial media influence and the majority of the responses say that the media isn't a factor because very few clients actually pay any attention. I used to feel that way too but lately I've seen and heard things from clients and others that lead me to believe we should worry. I think that complacency is dangerous because there's lots of crap out there. And unlike some, I worry that this crap is influencing people to take action that will hurt them.
User avatar
smelly
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 23:26
Location: Windsor ON

Postby Dennis » 18 May 2006 12:37

I've polled my peers about financial advisors, particularly the commission based ones that most use locally, and the consensus is that the commission advisor usually makes recommendations that put the biggest commission in their pockets.

In addition, the consensus is that financial writers have been responsible for opening the eyes of their readers to the financial shenanigans that (some) financial advisors use to maximize their income at the expense of their client.
"Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they've stolen.".....Mort Sahl
Dennis
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 3613
Joined: 09 Mar 2005 15:52
Location: Muskoka, Ontario

Postby smelly » 18 May 2006 12:52

Dennis wrote:I've polled my peers about financial advisors, particularly the commission based ones that most use locally, and the consensus is that the commission advisor usually makes recommendations that put the biggest commission in their pockets.

In addition, the consensus is that financial writers have been responsible for opening the eyes of their readers to the financial shenanigans that (some) financial advisors use to maximize their income at the expense of their client.


I'll ignore the easy targets in your post and simply ask you which opinion poll you feel is more valid Dennis? Yours or mine?
User avatar
smelly
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 23:26
Location: Windsor ON

Postby Dennis » 18 May 2006 13:12

Probably both about equally valid.
"Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they've stolen.".....Mort Sahl
Dennis
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 3613
Joined: 09 Mar 2005 15:52
Location: Muskoka, Ontario

Postby dagan » 18 May 2006 14:36

[Restored from backup 2006-07-18]

Smelly, despite my quirky style, I am NOT saying that I don't care about this or that I don't care if people are hurt. On the contrary. But it is an issue of perspective and relevance.

If you care that people could be hurt from this, then you should be interested in finding out the magnitude of the problem, which is the basis of the question of how many people are affected. If no one is affected, or there is no evidence of it, then you are chasing ghosts.

As you know, I can be very passionate about many things. I also know a few things about losing balance and perspective. If you are content to rail against perceived wrongs in the face of little to no evidence, and in a manner that outwardly appears unbalanced and extreme, then IMO, you are guilty of this.
dagan
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
 
Posts: 476
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 15:25
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Postby smelly » 18 May 2006 16:46

Dennis wrote:Probably both about equally valid.


Considering the venue were we're having this discussion, I'll accept that our views are equally valid. Outside of FWR, in the real world, I'd argue that my views would have the edge over yours because I'm in the business. Just like I'd submit to your expertise in whatever field you toil(ed) in.
User avatar
smelly
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 23:26
Location: Windsor ON

Postby smelly » 18 May 2006 17:05

dagan wrote:If you care that people could be hurt from this, then you should be interested in finding out the magnitude of the problem, which is the basis of the question of how many people are affected. If no one is affected, or there is no evidence of it, then you are chasing ghosts.


So if I'm reading you right, unless any damage has occured and can be quantified and unless it's relatively significant, there is no need to be concerned? That's where we're different Dagan. I can perceive potential problems and I care enough to raise a warning flag. I don't need to wait for a falling hammer to actually hit the head of the person in it's path or to analyze the possibilities for further injuries from the other 100 hammers falling over the rest of the people before I speak up. Sometimes detailed analysis is required but in this case common sense and experience are pretty much all you need to recognize this problem.
User avatar
smelly
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 23:26
Location: Windsor ON

Postby Dennis » 18 May 2006 18:39

smelly, your views (on journalists and their articles) are equally valid or INVALID.

Even outside of this forum your views on journalists are prejudiced because of their efforts to expose the shoddy practises and conflicts of interest of many FAs, particularly the commission salespeople.

My views on journalists may not have the industry background to fall back on but that only reinforces my objectivity. Incorrect technical advice may cause me to make a minor error in handling my portfolio but the advice that (some) journalists provide benefits me much more by exposing and advising how to recognize the self serving financial advicer.
"Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they've stolen.".....Mort Sahl
Dennis
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 3613
Joined: 09 Mar 2005 15:52
Location: Muskoka, Ontario

Postby brucecohen » 18 May 2006 18:45

smelly wrote:I've polled my peers about financial media influence and the majority of the responses say that the media isn't a factor because very few clients actually pay any attention. I used to feel that way too but lately I've seen and heard things from clients and others that lead me to believe we should worry.


And those things are......?
brucecohen
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 9916
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 17:47

Postby smelly » 18 May 2006 20:48

Dennis wrote:smelly, your views (on journalists and their articles) are equally valid or INVALID.


If my views are equally valid or invalid then so are yours. And be careful when picking your heros. It's no secret I have little respect for many who call themselves journalists. And it's because I understand their agenda and not many have truth as their top priority. But I can't prove it so let's just leave it at that. You think there are lots of evil advisors and I think there are lots of evil journalist.

And if you want to discuss whether or not my opinions are more or less valid than yours, what is it that you do or did for a living Dennis. Maybe you'll understand my point if I give you an example that's a little closer to home.
User avatar
smelly
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 23:26
Location: Windsor ON

Postby smelly » 18 May 2006 20:57

BruceCohen wrote:And those things are......?


I've heard clients say they read that LSIFs will be bankrupt by 2008 (a friend read it in the paper). The initial news about the changes in Ontario for LSIF credits was read by lots of people but the news that it was changed wasn't picked up by those same readers.

I hear people that have been happy and successful clients for years suddenly saying that DSC is bad. When they've never paid a cent of DSC in their entire time they have been with us.

I hear people saying they have too many funds, not enough funds, they should move all their investments into Oil and Gas (5 years ago it was High Tech), that they're disallusioned with mutual funds (even though they've done very well) because they read an article that says they're uncool now.

A client who bought shares in something called Lumina (I think that's what it was) based on a pump article in the G&M which has now gone nipples north.

Shall I go on?
User avatar
smelly
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 23:26
Location: Windsor ON

Postby brucecohen » 18 May 2006 22:25

smelly wrote:
I've heard clients say they read that LSIFs will be bankrupt by 2008 (a friend read it in the paper). The initial news about the changes in Ontario for LSIF credits was read by lots of people but the news that it was changed wasn't picked up by those same readers.


1. Given poor sales for LSIFs, poor returns and that at least 2 LSIFs have gone into receivership in recent months, is it so unreasonable that people would ask about the risk of bankruptcy? In any event, the people who you are being paid through trailers to service came to you with questions and/or concerns. What's wrong with that?

2. As I recall, the media reported the Ontario changes. What did you and the LSIF promoters do to make sure the message got through?

I hear people that have been happy and successful clients for years suddenly saying that DSC is bad. When they've never paid a cent of DSC in their entire time they have been with us.


DSC is bad when used by unscrupulous advisors. Indeed, I remember writing an article inspired by complaints from good advisors about how easy it was for bad advisors to attract people through seminars, load them down with DSC funds at 4-5% upfront and then forget about them. A year or two later these clients left and their new advisors got stuck with the proverbial dog's breakfast and a trailer of only 0.5%. Meanwhile, there was no recourse against the bad guys -- not even a chargeback as with life insurance.

What about the case in which the client finally reaches the end of the redemption fee schedule and the rep has him/her redeem and buy a new fund on a DSC? Or the case in which the rep has the client do the fee-free 10% annual withdrawal and then has the client put that money into a brand new DSC purchase? Are those practices good or "bad"?

Oh, and what about the case of the investor who is encouraged to buy into a fund because of its star manager only to see that manager leave a few months later? Is that good or bad?

DSC is at best neutral. It works if you stay in the same family. But it's inherently inferior to 0% front-end load, both for the client and the for the advisor who has confidence in his/her advice and ability to establish and maintain long-term relationships with his/her clients.

So again, the clients you are paid through trailers to service came to you with questions and/or concerns. What's wrong with that?

I hear people saying they have too many funds, not enough funds, they should move all their investments into Oil and Gas (5 years ago it was High Tech)


Many people do have too many funds and many have too few. So? Did you examine the portfolios of those expressing such concerns? I recall hearing many, many advisors beating the drum on behalf of tech in the '90s and oil/gas more recently. Indeed, how many advisors pay shills like Dr! Jerry White to pound those drums?

they're disallusioned with mutual funds (even though they've done very well) because they read an article that says they're uncool now.


Funny thing about that. Traditional mutual funds have faced their greatest competition from wraps and from principal protected notes. Both products were developed by the industry before there was apparent retail demand and then SOLD to clients. I've heard many, many advisors tout the superiority of wraps over traditional mutual funds, often on very specious grounds. (I won't bother to recount the story of a friend who I lunched with last week whose trusted professional advisor managed to sell him not one, but two, wraps plus a handful of mutual funds and pooled funds with a PPN thrown in for good measure. :roll: )

A client who bought shares in something called Lumina (I think that's what it was) based on a pump article in the G&M which has now gone nipples north.


Definitely cause for concern, grave concern, utmost concern. Especially considering the truckloads of studies that have shown conclusively that no advisor has ever recommended a stock that has failed. Horrors! (Out of curiosity, did this G&M article by any chance quote trusted, professional, knowledgeable brokerage house analysts or advisors who gushed about the stock?)

Shall I go on?

Please. :lol:

BTW, you keep complaining that the media never incorporate the tax credits when reporting LSIF returns. Maybe it's good for you that they don't.

I think most, if not all, would agree that Vengrowth is the class act of the LSIF world. Not surprisingly, they run the two largest funds -- Vengrowth II and Vengrowth.

Let's say that five years ago your client put $5,000 into Vengrowth II (the largest LSIF). PalTrak says the 5-year CAGR at Mar 31 was -4.6%. So those $5,000 in units were worth just $3,951. But, hey, the client is still above water thanks to the tax credits, which reduced his cost to $3,500. So, effectively, his 5-year CAGR is.....drumroll please....2.5%! Now, that did beat the asset-weighted median 5-year CAGR for money market funds -- 2.1% -- but was a bit shy of the 18.4% CAGR for plain old boring Canadian small cap mutual funds with no tax breaks.

You're right. The media should be reporting that. So clients can ask their advisors why they accepted an eight-year lock-in and pay an MER of 4.9% to do a wee bit better than a MMF.
brucecohen
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 9916
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 17:47

Postby adrian2 » 19 May 2006 07:53

adrian2 wrote:
Norbert Schlenker wrote:
smelly wrote:I'd be happy to debate his article and all the discrepancies and errors with him.

Send him an invitation. You have his email address. If he won't, then I'm happy to discuss it even though I don't have the advantage of having seen the original piece. It would help, though, if you'd start by pointing out "all the discrepancies and errors". So far, you're up to one omission and, as I argued above, where should a paper draw the line on repeating the basics?

I second Norbert's curiosity for "all the discrepancies and errors".

I repeat myself in asking for "all the discrepancies and errors" which smelly was so incensed that he didn't notice the one criticism he raised was invalid (he said there should not have been a capital loss in Jon's specific case and maybe he'll snitch it to CRA).

Put up or shut up. It was a good article.
User avatar
adrian2
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 9717
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 09:42
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Postby smelly » 19 May 2006 13:56

BruceCohen wrote:1. Given poor sales for LSIFs.............


You asked me for examples of what I’m hearing from clients that leads me to believe that anyone who really cares about investors getting quality advice should care about what they’re hearing and reading in the media. I gave you examples of incorrect information as well as examples of facts and semi facts that may or may not be valid or are at best just superficially semi-correct. But in all cases if investors took action based on this information could likely hurt themselves.

I didn’t realize you’d want to debate each item as we’ve done before ad nauseam. Obviously your opinions of my examples are coloured by your experiences and a pessimistic view of the industry where you’ve witnessed a few examples of bad advisors – some proven, some not proven, a sprinkling of facts and lots of innuendo and anecdotal evidence. While my opinions are coloured by my experiences and optimistic views of the industry where I’ve seen thousands of examples of great work by many, many advisors and thousands of happy clients whose lives have been literally enriched by their experiences. And I’ve seen no first hand examples of bad advisors and read/heard about a very tiny amount of proven cases.

Do you really want to debate each and every one of your responses to my examples? The final outcome will be inconclusive to the unbiased readers. DIY zealots will side with you and the one or two advisors lurking will be on mine. I don’t see the point especially since it’s supposed to be a nice weekend but I’ll do it if you insist.

BTW that last shot about how VG has done compared to MMF or Cdn Small Cap funds is really lame don’t you think? You really want me to respond to that?
User avatar
smelly
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 23:26
Location: Windsor ON

Postby smelly » 19 May 2006 14:10

adrian2 wrote:I repeat myself in asking for "all the discrepancies and errors" which smelly was so incensed that he didn't notice the one criticism he raised was invalid (he said there should not have been a capital loss in Jon's specific case and maybe he'll snitch it to CRA).

Put up or shut up. It was a good article.


Did you miss this post upthread or wasn't it acceptabe:

He’s never accepted challenges before so I doubt he would now. And anything short of a face to face and it would be a sham. Nope, just him. And it would have to be him, without any feed from his buddies. Besides, the ACB thing was the major one. Other than that there’s the “gossip” as you so innocently characterize it, the absence of a ROR chart based on net cost and his lack of explanation regarding the reasons for the high MERs. I also don’t have much respect for his vacillation regarding the merits of the asset class - “I doubt I’ll be buying any more labour funds”, “which is why I didn’t dump all my LSIF holdings”.


And I never said the author didn’t have a capial loss, once again, what I said was he may not have a loss unless he was aware of how the ACB is calculated. And unless he has that information, even with a dog like Triax, he may have overstated his loss by 30%.

But he makes some comments about tax loss that need to be cleared up. Something most investors, including the column's author, probably don't know is how CRA evaluates capital gains/losses with LSIFs. For a redemption to result in a capital gain, the proceeds must be more than the gross purchase price. Sounds simple and logical, right? You buy $5K and sell for $6K you score a $1K capital gain (and to Bruce and others, yes here have been plenty LSIFs sold at a gain ). BUT, in order to generate a capital loss, the proceeds must be less than the net cost - the gross, reduced by the tax credits. So, you buy for $5K and you sell for $3750 but since it cost you $3.5K after tax, the tax Nazi says “NO CAPITAL LOSS FOR YOU, NEXT”, because you sold it for more than your net cost. But no capital gain either because you are in that funny window between your gross cost and your net cost. The author mentions TRIAX, which has had such abysmal performance that it may have met these criteria but none of the others that I'm familiar with have dropped in value enough to be considered a capital loss. Soooo, our intrepid Personal Finance journalist may or may not have a capital loss.


Without his details, we don't know. OK? Can we put that to rest now?

BTW, my point about the danger of people misreading stuff they read in the media has been proven in this thread once again. Thanks.

Maybe you guys can get together and nominate one person for me to debate this with. I'd really appreciate it.
User avatar
smelly
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 23:26
Location: Windsor ON

Postby NormR » 19 May 2006 14:19

smelly wrote:You asked me for examples of what I’m hearing from clients that leads me to believe that anyone who really cares about investors getting quality advice should care about what they’re hearing and reading in the media. I gave you examples of incorrect information as well as examples of facts and semi facts that may or may not be valid or are at best just superficially semi-correct. But in all cases if investors took action based on this information could likely hurt themselves.


Ah, so everyone should follow smelly's advice. But if they did then the markets would cease to function as everyone would try to sell and buy at the same time. So, your clients should be thankful that others do their own thing and may make mistakes from time to time. You've got a large MER+TER gap to bridge, so you'd best hope that DIYers will make lots of mistakes.
User avatar
NormR
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 3845
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 12:19

Postby dagan » 19 May 2006 14:36

[Restored from backup 2006-07-18]

smelly wrote:So if I'm reading you right, unless any damage has occured and can be quantified and unless it's relatively significant, there is no need to be concerned? That's where we're different Dagan. I can perceive potential problems and I care enough to raise a warning flag.


The issue is whether there is actually a problem or whether you just perceive that there might be one. I see the latter, and you appear to be resisting the logical call to evidence that would help you argue that it's the former. Without it, we just have your biased perceptions and complaints about having to advise your clients on these issues.

I think you're chasing ghosts. I see no end to it or even much intention to further it with substance, so I'll leave you to it. Enjoy.
dagan
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
 
Posts: 476
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 15:25
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Postby Dennis » 19 May 2006 14:50

Methinks thou do'st protest too much smelly!
"Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they've stolen.".....Mort Sahl
Dennis
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 3613
Joined: 09 Mar 2005 15:52
Location: Muskoka, Ontario

Postby brucecohen » 19 May 2006 15:01

smelly wrote:BTW that last shot about how VG has done compared to MMF or Cdn Small Cap funds is really lame don’t you think? You really want me to respond to that?


Yes. You complained several times about the media not factoring in the tax credit when reporting LSIF returns. So I did factor in that credit. Do you consider a five-year CAGR of 2.5% to be a “good” return, especially during one of the best runs ever for Canadian equities? Yes or no.

You stated earlier:

I've polled my peers about financial media influence and the majority of the responses say that the media isn't a factor because very few clients actually pay any attention. I used to feel that way too but lately I've seen and heard things from clients and others that lead me to believe we should worry.


So I asked you to cite those things that you have lately found so worrisome. You cited several.

Regarding the first, I cited three reasons why investors might have reasonable cause to feel concerned and seek information/clarification/assurance from the advisors who are paid to provide ongoing service. Why do you find this egregious? If a fund is thrown into receivership, is it unreasonable for people to wonder about their own funds? Is the failure of a fund newsworthy?

Regarding the second, you expressed concern that the great unwashed are unaware that Ontario backed off its previously announced changes to the LSIF program. I noted that the media duly reported those changes and asked what you and the LSIF industry have done to ensure that the message got across to the great unwashed. You did not answer.

Regarding the third, I cited a number of actual and factual situations in which DSCs have been “bad.” Do you claim those situations are not bad or that they've never occurred?

Regarding the 4th, you expressed concern that many people feel they have too many funds and many feel they have too few. I noted that many do, in fact, have too many or too few funds. Are you suggesting that every investor has the precisely correct number of funds? Indeed, can you tell us the unanimous view of advisors on the “proper” number of funds?

Regarding the 5th, you expressed concern about irrational exuberance over first tech and now energy. I pointed out that advisors (and analysts) have also engaged in such lopsided thinking. Are you saying they haven’t?

Regarding the 6th, do you dispute that wraps and PPNs have generated the most competition for traditional mutual funds? My source is the tracking by Investor Economics. What’s yours? And what do you see as the biggest competition for traditional MFs? Are you suggesting that Canadian investors rose up en masse and demanded that wraps and PPNs be created, and that clients then steamrolled their advisors into selling them?

Regarding the 7th, you cited the worrisome state of affairs in which one client bought a stock that crashed. I pointed out that stocks recommended by advisors also crash from time to time. Do you disagree? I also suggested there’s a good chance the article was quoting bullish comments by advisor(s) or analyst(s). Is that not possible?

I gave you examples of incorrect information as well as examples of facts and semi facts that may or may not be valid or are at best just superficially semi-correct.


You did? What was the incorrect information?

But in all cases if investors took action based on this information could likely hurt themselves.


“If”…”could”…”likely.” And if anyone gets behind the wheel of a car, they could likely hurt themselves in a crash. So only take a taxi or ride the bus!

I didn’t realize you’d want to debate each item as we’ve done before ad nauseam.


I don’t. I simply asked you to flesh out a sweeping statement you made so that I could understand why there’s cause to worry. I didn't get any flesh, let alone meat.

Obviously your opinions of my examples are coloured by your experiences and a pessimistic view of the industry where you’ve witnessed a few examples of bad advisors – some proven, some not proven, a sprinkling of facts and lots of innuendo and anecdotal evidence.


Obviously your opinions are coloured by your experiences and a pessimistic view of situations where you’ve witnessed a few examples of bad clients – some proven, some not proven, a sprinkling of facts and lots of innuendo and anecdotal evidence.

I’ve seen thousands of examples of great work by many, many advisors and thousands of happy clients whose lives have been literally enriched by their experiences.


I too have seen examples of good work done by many advisors. I’ve also seen examples of slipshod and even immoral work done by bad advisors.

If all advisors are good and all clients are happy and feel well-served, why is there cause for worry? Indeed, if all advisors are good and all clients feel well served, why do so many advisors feel compelled to hide behind the embedded compensation of the DSC structure?

And I’ve seen no first hand examples of bad advisors and read/heard about a very tiny amount of proven cases.


What do you mean by “proven?” Please comment on the following recent cases presented to me:

1. The one mentioned in my earlier post. A wrap is supposed to be a properly diversified portfolio – what the industry insists on calling a “solution.” Why then would a client need two wraps plus a handful of stand-alone funds plus a PPN? The PPN, by the way, is linked to the performance of shares in the big six banks. Why does the client need a 5-year capital return guarantee when investing only in the major banks? Indeed, if the client can handle the risk of two wraps, a handful of standalone funds and a $500,000 leverage loan, why does he need a capital return guarantee at all?

2. An advisor tells a couple who jointing make $50,000/year that they must save more than $10,000/year to be able to retire – even though they are debt-free, have always made max RRSP contributions, have a partially indexed DB pension, and have a modest retirement income target. Examination of his voluminous report reveals that he (or his assistant) repeatedly mixed up pre- and post-tax income when entering data into their software. Obviously, the report was then delivered to the clients without being checked.

3. A client recently asked his advisor why the high-end wrap he was sold last year has substantially underperformed a benchmark composed of indices that match the wrap’s allocation. The advisor told him that indices are just artificial constructions that do not represent the market and there’s no way to invest in them. The client replied that there is – ETFs. The advisor told him that ETFs are only for active traders and not suitable for those who wish to buy and hold.
brucecohen
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 9916
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 17:47

Postby dagan » 19 May 2006 15:01

[Restored from backup 2006-07-18]

Smelly, I've asked for any help possible on finding a way around road blocks that have been created that prevent a transfer of mutual funds between eligible accounts because suspension and lack of pricing affects calculation of dealer trailer commissions. Thousands of unit holders are affected and it is costing some of them money. It is more than a potential or perceived possible problem and many people could be helped and would be grateful, including me.
dagan
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
 
Posts: 476
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 15:25
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Postby brucecohen » 19 May 2006 15:34

dagan wrote:Smelly, I've asked for any help possible on finding a way around road blocks that have been created that prevent a transfer of mutual funds between eligible accounts because suspension and lack of pricing affects calculation of dealer trailer commissions. Thousands of unit holders are affected and it is costing some of them money. It is more than a potential or perceived possible problem and many people could be helped and would be grateful, including me.


Dagan, I wasn't aware of this. Is it an open-end mutual fund? Which one? If you take this issue to a -- gasp! -- journalist, he/she would likely jump on it, getting good info from IFIC and one or two MF industry lawyers.
brucecohen
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 9916
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 17:47

Postby dagan » 19 May 2006 15:37

[Restored from backup 2006-07-18]

Bruce, I'll answer this there to keep it in the one sopt? Thanks!
Last edited by dagan on 17 Jul 2006 21:37, edited 1 time in total.
dagan
Silver Ring
Silver Ring
 
Posts: 476
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 15:25
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Postby smelly » 19 May 2006 22:30

Dennis wrote:Methinks thou do'st protest too much smelly!


Guess what me thinks.
User avatar
smelly
Gold Ring
Gold Ring
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 23:26
Location: Windsor ON

PreviousNext

Return to Stocks, Bonds, ETFs, Funds, REITS and More

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], JaydoubleU and 1 guest