“There is
nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at
all." - Peter Drucker
As we have publicly disclosed, Kenmar Associates will no longer respond
to any CSA consultation regarding, Best interests, DSC or embedded commissions.
Our team has spent hundreds of person-hours dedicated to regulatory reform with
no positive result over the last decade. The CSA has announced that it will conduct another consultation on embedded commissions in September.This Open letter therefore should be
viewed as a reaction rather than a response.
In the planned consultation the CSA will be proposing to prohibit the payment of trailing commissions to dealers, such as discount brokers, who do not make a suitability determination (presumably, this is equivalent to banning the offering of products such as mutual funds with embedded commissions being paid to dealers, including discount brokers, for services they cannot and knowingly will not provide). This can be likened to Health safety regulators consulting on whether poison should be prohibited from retail grocery shelves. Consulting on such an obvious case of financial assault on investors is disrespectful of retail investors. The CSA should be ashamed to admit that for well over a decade hundreds of millions of dollars have needlessly been diverted from the retirement savings of Canadians despite numerous pleas from consumer groups.
The basic securities law of
dealing honestly, fairly and in good faith with clients has been brazenly
breached with not a whimper of regulatory enforcement or concern for retail investor
protection. Further, the CSA has not warned investors via Alerts and education
that it is permitting this broad daylight robbing of their hard earned money.
The CSA is in effect going to
be asking for comments on an issue that is clearly unlawful and harmful to
investors. It is treating common sense and basic morality as sidebars to the
discussion. It is well aware that Fund Facts which states that trailers are for
the provision of services (albeit unspecified) and personalized investment
advice. The CSA therefore knows there are elements of misrepresentation
involved when discount brokers offer A series of mutual funds with embedded trailer
commissions.
The CSA is also aware that
even the trade Association for the investment funds industry has called on
them to establish rules to ensure that mutual funds carrying an embedded
advisor fee are sold only in channels where advice is permitted.
“Investors
who buy funds directly, for example through a discount broker, should be
confident that they are not inadvertently overpaying by selecting a series that
includes fees for services that are not available through that platform,” - Paul C. Bourque, Q.C.,
IFIC’s president and CEO. Source: https://www.ific.ca/en/news/limit-series-a-sales-to-channels-that-permit-advice-ific/
The CSA has not yet addressed the enabler of these abusive trailer payments, the mutual funds. The mutual funds are knowingly reducing fund assets by paying discount brokers (sometimes even related parties) for nothing. These assets aren’t some intangible collection of cash. They are the retirement savings of millions of Canadians. Are there provisions in NI1-107 that exempt funds from protecting unitholder assets? If not, why isn’t the CSA prosecuting those entities for a breach of fiduciary duty? Why must investors have to resort to Class Actions for such an in-your-face attack on their life savings?
The CSA has not yet addressed the enabler of these abusive trailer payments, the mutual funds. The mutual funds are knowingly reducing fund assets by paying discount brokers (sometimes even related parties) for nothing. These assets aren’t some intangible collection of cash. They are the retirement savings of millions of Canadians. Are there provisions in NI1-107 that exempt funds from protecting unitholder assets? If not, why isn’t the CSA prosecuting those entities for a breach of fiduciary duty? Why must investors have to resort to Class Actions for such an in-your-face attack on their life savings?
Earlier
this month IIROC abruptly suspended Section 2 from its notice that
accompanies guidance for order-execution-only (OEO) services and activities,
published in April this year. The section says IIROC expects OEO firms to make
available, whenever possible, series of funds that don’t pay trailing
commissions for ongoing advice. When no such series is available and an OEO
firm offers a series with a trailing commission, IIROC says in the section that
it expects the firm to address the conflict—by rebating to the client the
portion of the trailing commission or by “taking other similar steps.” So
for now, those expectations are on hold and investors will continue to be exploited.
In the meantime, OEO firms remain subject to IIROC’s rules concerning conflicts-of-interest,
including the requirement to address conflicts considering the best interest of
the client, says the IIROC Notice. That may be, but will IIROC protect
investors by enforcing its rules with its Member discount brokers? Will the
practice of unduly collecting trailers cease? Will there be rebates?
The Canadian
Foundation for Advancement of Investor Rights (FAIR) has criticized IIROC’s
decision. Frank Allen, Executive Director of FAIR was “ dismayed that IIROC cites the
upcoming CSA rule proposal prohibiting the payment of trailing commissions to
online brokerage firms (discount brokerages) as the reason for the suspension.”
SIPA, individual investors and ourselves
support FAIR in being critical of the IIROC action. The suspension leaves
affected Retail investors subject to mitigation risk and one can reasonably
argue that the statute of limitations time clock is already ticking.
Even if the CSA were to ban discount brokers from offering products with
embedded service commitments we are concerned that such a ban might include
exceptions or be open to future regulatory exemptions. There is even the
possibility a cost-benefit analysis will be required, again delaying affirmative
action. Kenmar are therefore calling for a cancellation of the consultation and
an immediate banning of any dealer from offering a product or security that contains
an obligation to provide a service or function that it cannot and/or will not
provide. That would be common sense- it is the right thing to do and it will
save people hundreds of person- hours of wasteful activity.
As to the planned consultation re a proposed ban on the DSC-sold fund,
there is the same question. Why? Does the CSA not have enough data to make a decision?
Has it not heard the voice of consumers pleading for a prohibition? Were
Roundtable conclusions unclear? Is the client complaint data ambiguous? Is
there any research that supports not banning DSC-sold funds? Is there any
identifiable benefit to clients of a DSC-sold fund? Does the CSA buy the feeble
arguments from a small minority of industry participants on the benefits of
DSC? The CSA knows the answers and yet it continue to consult , dragging out
the agony for investors for another year or two and more if there is a extended
transition period.
Several responsible firms and Dealing Reps have stopped selling DSC
Funds even as the CSA waffles on making a definitive decision. As with many CSA
regulations we fear there will be carve outs or exemptions so that even a ban
is nothing more than an illusion. Accordingly, Kenmar respectfully request that
the CSA cancel this planned consultation since it clearly knows the answer. The
CSA should make a decision- ban the sale of DSC-sold funds while defining the
rules regarding unitholders currently holding such toxic funds. Such a positive
action would help restore confidence in the CSA and definitely would be in the Public
interest.
If despite all logic and fairness, the planned consultation proceeds, we
draw the CSA’s attention to a public statement from the Ontario Securities
Commission’s Investor Advisory Panel (IAP). The IAP is calling on the CSA to
prevent possible further investor abuse by making their proposed
bans on deferred sales charge (DSC) mutual funds and the payment of trailer
fees to discount brokers retroactive to the launch of a consultation
slated for September. The IAP says that it’s concerned about the possible risk
to investors while the consultation plays out. It says that “In proposing
the elimination of DSCs and the discontinuance of trailing commission payments
to discount brokers, the CSA has noted that these fee practices are
problematic, inappropriate and harmful.”
Kenmar fully support this backup choice approach and respectfully again
request that the CSA immediately issue an educational pamphlet and Investor
ALERT on the harmful effects of DSC-sold Funds and products with embedded
trailing commissions offered by IIROC regulated discount brokers.
The CSA
website states: The CSA protects Canadian investors from unfair, improper, or
fraudulent practices and fosters fair and efficient capital markets. By cancelling the upcoming
consultation and making the necessary decisions, the CSA can demonstrate that
it is serious about protecting investors. This is an incredible opportunity
that should not be missed.
Sincerely,
Kenmar Associates
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.