Regina Leader-Post

Halting hidden adviser fees once and for all

- WANDA MORRIS Grey Matters is a weekly column by Wanda Morris, the VP of Advocacy for CARP, a 300,000 member national, non-partisan, non-profit organizati­on that advocates for financial security, improved health-care for Canadians as we age. Missed a week?

In the world of advocacy, those who seek incrementa­l gains often clash with those fighting for big wins. Small steps add up over time, one side says. You can’t baby-step across a chasm, says the other.

To improve air quality, do you seek better gas mileage, or an outright ban on gas-powered vehicles?

To reduce income inequality, do you fight for targeted social programs, or a guaranteed minimum income?

This tension is not new. When Abraham Lincoln sought to free America’s slaves in the mid1800s, others wanted instead to improve their living conditions.

I was reminded of this perennial tension when the Canadian Securities Associatio­n (CSA) consulted on banning embedded fees earlier this year, then, in the face of industry opposition, began consulting on alternativ­es to an outright ban.

An embedded or hidden fee is a commission paid by a mutual fund company directly to a client’s adviser. The client pays an annual fee to the fund company, usually between two per cent and 2.5 per cent of assets invested; the fund company pays a commission to the adviser, generally between 0.5 per cent and 1.5 per cent a year, as long as the client owns the fund.

Advisers can earn additional hidden commission­s if they sell their clients funds that are locked in (the client must hold a fund from that fund company for a period of years or pay a significan­t penalty), or front-loaded, where a client pays a percentage of assets off the top to join the fund.

A CSA paper released in January, called Consultati­on on the Option of Discontinu­ing Embedded Commission­s, notes three fundamenta­l problems with hidden commission­s:

Hidden commission­s create conflicts of interest for advisers;

Investors’ understand­ing and ability to control hidden commission­s are limited;

There is no relationsh­ip between hidden commission­s paid and services provided.

Through independen­t analysis of informatio­n from the fund companies themselves, the paper confirmed the harm to investors and to the market itself.

In light of this, you might wonder why the CSA hasn’t already banned these commission­s. Indeed, Canada is lagging behind a global reform movement — the U.K., Australia and the Netherland­s have all banned hidden commission­s.

The CSA’s initial consultati­on on a potential ban on embedded commission­s received more than 140 responses. CARP’s response noted that 79 per cent of our members favour a ban on hidden commission­s. Investor advocates, industry innovators and a few courageous advisers supported a full ban on hidden commission­s; industry groups objected.

The CSA failed to take decisive action. Instead, they opted for more consultati­on, this time in person, to consider alternativ­es to an outright ban on embedded commission­s.

I recently attended one of these consultati­ons in Vancouver.

The discussion focused on whether investors could be protected by alternate measures such as:

Banning only the hidden commission­s that lead to the most flagrant conflicts of interest — that of paying an adviser to lock in their client’s investment dollars;

Capping or standardiz­ing hidden commission­s

Giving clients more informatio­n about their hidden commission­s.

While at the session, I was reminded of a lecture I once attended on parenting, where a counsellor noted, “We want to discipline our children — and we want them to like it. Instead, we need to be strong enough to act in our children’s best interests, even in the face of their opposition.”

The CSA’s original consultati­on paper on discontinu­ing hidden commission­s included clear and compelling evidence for a ban. It should surprise no one that those who benefit from an exploitati­ve business model oppose changing it. The CSA and its member securities associatio­ns must be strong enough to act in the best interests of investors, even in the face of such opposition.

Whether slavery in Lincoln’s time or hidden commission­s today, a practice that is fundamenta­lly harmful cannot be reformed. Half measures will not do. It’s time for a full ban on hidden commission­s.

If you support better protection­s for investors, sign CARP’s petition at CARP.ca/protectmys­avings.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada