A core tenet in contemporary securities
regulation is that public disclosure will level the playing field by
reducing information asymmetries. It's tempting to think that just by
spelling out the features and risks on a piece of paper, let
investors read it and everything's OK — the investor now can make
an informed investment decision.. The reality is that the disclosure
process is far more complex . Effective disclosure depends on how
clearly written the disclosure is , the completeness of the
disclosure, the investors' willingness to read it , the investor's
understanding of the disclosure , the investor's financial and
contractual literacy , the investor's vulnerability level, when the
disclosure takes place and a number of other factors.Even the method of delivery ,font size and location can impact the effectiveness of disclosure.In the case of
retail investors, we have concluded that disclosure is a necessary
but insufficient tool for investor protection.In this blog we discuss
a few key aspects of disclosure for the retail investor.
Take
a look at our Comment letter on Point- Of- Sale disclosure to the
Bank of International Settlements.It's a great primer on disclosure
as it appies to investing. It's written in plain language so very
easy to follow.http://www.bis.org/publ/joint32/kenmar.pdf
For
over a decade, Kenmar Associates has advocated for the delivery of
Fund Facts prior to the
decision to purchase mutual funds. For whatever reasons, such an obvious requirement has been
opposed by industry participants and lobbyists. This makes absolutely no sense if there is to be an
informed investment decision. It is inconceivable that an industry which constantly claims the value of investment advice should not insist that dealer representatives provide a copy of FF's to clients before the purchase decision is made. Providing FF two business days after the investment decision has been made is a nonsense disclosure . Here's what we told regulators http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/documents/en/Securities-Category8-Comments/com_20140411_81-101_kenmar-associates.pdf
decision to purchase mutual funds. For whatever reasons, such an obvious requirement has been
opposed by industry participants and lobbyists. This makes absolutely no sense if there is to be an
informed investment decision. It is inconceivable that an industry which constantly claims the value of investment advice should not insist that dealer representatives provide a copy of FF's to clients before the purchase decision is made. Providing FF two business days after the investment decision has been made is a nonsense disclosure . Here's what we told regulators http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/documents/en/Securities-Category8-Comments/com_20140411_81-101_kenmar-associates.pdf
Disclosure
isn't just about product characteristics and features.One of the
complaints often heard about the investment industry is lack of
disclosure about compensation. It is up to clients to ask their
financial advisor how they are compensated, and even then it might be
difficult to verify if the advisor is telling the truth. Independent
research has demonstrated that compensation has a huge impact on the
investment recommendations by advisors ( non-fiduciaries). It would
seem that more disclosure is the obvious answer, but according to one
academic study it might not make much of a difference in the actions
of clients and might make the advisors even more biased.George
Loewenstein et al from Carnegie Mellon University wanted to evaluate the
effects of conflict of interests disclosure from advisors, on the
decision making of their clients. The study entitled “TheDirt On Coming Clean:Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest“
had a surprising result .-
disclosing the conflict- of- interest actually increased the bias
even more.Lowenstein argues that “moral licensing” is one of the
reasons this happens. Basically this theory says that an advisor with
an undisclosed conflict- of-interest will feel guilty enough about it
that they will try to “do the right thing” to some degree. By
disclosing the conflict- of-interest, it allows the advisor to do
whatever they want since they have admitted the conflict and
therefore don’t have to feel guilty about it anymore. Be aware.
Regulators recognize that sales
communications play an important role in the business of investment
fund issuers, and as such,expect such communications to provide
“clear, accurate and balanced messages, particularly when directed
at retail investors.Such materials, if improperly written, can undo
the positive intent of mandated disclosures.Sales communications
should be in plain language and avoid the use of industry jargon,
defined terms or acronyms and generally be easy to understand by
retail investors. Information, including warnings, disclaimers and
qualifications, must be given sufficient prominence in order to be
consistent with the content of the document.Sales communications
should not include statements that are vague or exaggerated or that
cannot otherwise be verified. Regulators expect fund companies and
dealers to include specific information in sales communication
documentss if a distribution or yield is quantified in such document,
including the basis of the calculation, the percentage of total
distributions comprising reinvested units, how the yield was
calculated, the time period covered by the distributions, the key
assumptions and the impact changes to such key assumptions may have
on the target distribution or yield. Lastly, They also expect that
return of capital distributions should not be presented in a way to
suggest that they represent investment returns.A lot of expectations
but unfortunately little monitoring and regulatory enforcement.
It is all well and fine to disclose the MER of a mutual fund but unless the investor can assess the long-term impact on fees, the disclosure has limited value.Similarly ,if performance is provided without comparison to a benchmark , the average retail investor may derive little from the disclosure. Some disclosure documents are so complex and filled with elaborate terms and conditions that it should come as no surprise that retail investors find it difficult to make informed decisions.This is one reason why we have promoted the idea that investment advisors should be proficient and be required to act as fiduciaries.
We will soon be commenting on the fee and performance disclosures required by the Client Relationship Model part 2.Until CRM2 disclosure focussed on the prospectus and continuous disclosure obligations. With CRM2 ,regulators awoke to the fact that dealers had been able to promote a transaction business as an advice business but without the associated disclosures and standards. Once registered as salespersons, stockbrokers and salespersons became dealer representatives and business titles changed to advisor and other misleading tiitles which calmed invesrors. .Hence the sudden need for the disclosure of fees , account performance , conflicts- of -interest and client relationships and an increrased regulatory scrutiny of "advisor " titles and designations.
We have also commented in the past on " Free lunch" seminars, financial pornography , presentations at retirement homes, Fund company webinars , "advsor" use of social media and other " off book" disclosure mechanisms that are loosely covered by securities laws and rules.All of these sorts of sales communications ( i.e. disclosures of information designed to promote sales) can be hazardous to your financial wealth. Take a read about what one abused investor has to say about “un-disclosure ” .http://www.investoradvocates.ca/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=180&p=3786#p3786
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.