boardroom-meeting-discussion

*This post has been updated to include new location details for the event.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) has released a full agenda for its roundtable to facilitate further stakeholder input on Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) Consultation Paper 81-408 — a ban on embedded commissions.

Read: CSA’s embedded commissions ban falls short for clients, say advisors

The roundtable is on September 18 from 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. at The Globe and Mail Centre, 17th floor, 351 King Street East in Toronto. It will include panel discussions — reflecting a diversity of views — on themes emerging from the consultation.

See a full agenda here, with a list of speakers that includes Warren Collier of Blackrock Asset Management Canada and Marian Passmore of the Canadian Foundation for Advancement of Investor Rights.

Read: No advice gap from other commissions bans: investors

Interested parties may register for the roundtable here.

Read: Industry response to embedded commissions ban: IFIC and Advocis

Dates for roundtables hosted by other CSA jurisdictions will be announced by the respective regulators.

Originally published on Advisor.ca
Add a comment

Have your say on this topic! Comments are moderated and may be edited or removed by
site admin as per our Comment Policy. Thanks!

See all comments Recent Comments

Tony

Why correct something that is working well? Clients are given the choice about fees and embedded commissions. At lower levels they always choose Embedded commissions and higher net worth clients choose Fee base. What the CSA should regulate is a maximum MER for each class of fund. As usual these regulators and lobby groups chase a wild goose and end up hurting those that they want to protect. However their salaries are protected, non disclosed and justify their existence!

Monday, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:12 pm Reply

VSiva

CSA should decide what is fair, followed globally in other nations to protect clients; Embedded commission discussion must separate – (1) DSC/LSC commission, (2) ongoing trailing commission (up to 1% annually)as both have different consequences to clients; As “Fee For Service” is between 1.25% to 2.50% (paying trailing commission is low to investors), investors look at what services are available globally and invest in their best interest.

There is no remedy or justice to clients including elderly clients when they incur significant DSC charges due to advisors’ failure in their DSC suitability as Advisors complete client KYC with long-term time horizon to suit to recommend DSC/LSC load types to facilitate to generate large commission and those clients’ are not actually long-term investors.

I am not concerned about fees but only look at net rates of return (ROR) that I get. Good Fund Manager may charge more fees like a top lawyer charges higher fees.

Monday, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:40 am Reply

Robert Blair

A comment on embedded commissions.
The concern I have for my clients is about 50% of my time is spent doing general financial planning not involving any discussion about investments or investment planning. As general financial planning is not a deductible expense this will cause some additional tax expense for my clients.
Fully embedded products deduct the MER then pass along what is left to the investing client. This structure effectively reduces what the client receives but does result in the embedded fee to be fully deducted. This is not a line item deduction when you do your taxes but does provide the same effect.
with a fee for service model the commission is separated and paid directly to the planner. This will result in the general financial planning work being done to not be a deductible expense.
To only allow for fee for service will result in higher costs for the investing public and potentially additional tax burden.

Wednesday, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:52 am Reply

Keith Hylton

Banning embedded commissions not only separates the rich from the average but it also keeps the average from obtaining the advise they need to potentially improve their financial situation. Plus, advisors may not be able to service children from clients who have money because their children are just starting out and they have no money. This will cause an issue with the client that will either end the relationship or force the advisor to service the client’s child for free. Furthermore, advisors become hard pressed to take on and/or keep clients that have little or no assets.

Tuesday, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:36 pm Reply