A veteran advisor is offering a controversial fix for SROs struggling to collect fines levied against banned players.
It’s unlikely to sit well with firms, but one seasoned player is suggesting they should be on the hook for fines that SROs are unable to collect from banned advisors.
“What’s the whole idea of a mutual fund dealer?” asks Ken MacCoy, a Chilliwack-based advisor. “The mutual fund dealer is supposed to ensure that their financial advisors are compliant and do things the right way. But, if they don’t, who’s responsible? The firm should be responsible.”
The comments come on the heels of a new report from the MFDA outlining its 2014 collection of fines. While it imposed more than $7.5 million, only slightly more than 2 per cent were successfully collected.
MacCoy doesn’t see the point of issuing a fine to an advisor who’s been permanently prohibited from selling mutual funds if they don’t make the fine some kind of deterrent against future actions by others. Until both the firm and advisor are held financially responsible for breaking MFDA rules, those who aren’t interesting in abiding by those rules will continue to break them knowing there won’t be any financial consequences other than being permanently banned.
In early March, WP reported on the case of a former dealing representative broke a number of MFDA rules revolving around leveraged loans, all of which resulted in a permanent prohibition for the former advisor from conducting business with any MFDA member.
Along with that ban came a $250,000 fine.
Given the MFDA’s track record for collecting fines (except in Alberta where liens are possible) against advisors who’ve been permanently prohibited from working with any MFDA firm, it’s a wonder they bother levying any fines in the first place, says another advisor.
“Here’s this huge fine. It becomes a condition if they want to be licensed again,” says an advisor who asked to remain anonymous. “It’s almost like the long-gun registry. Registering long guns will prevent crime [government rationale]. I don’t think so. It’s not going to prevent people from being stupid and it’s not going to prevent crooks from being crooks.”
“What’s the whole idea of a mutual fund dealer?” asks Ken MacCoy, a Chilliwack-based advisor. “The mutual fund dealer is supposed to ensure that their financial advisors are compliant and do things the right way. But, if they don’t, who’s responsible? The firm should be responsible.”
The comments come on the heels of a new report from the MFDA outlining its 2014 collection of fines. While it imposed more than $7.5 million, only slightly more than 2 per cent were successfully collected.
MacCoy doesn’t see the point of issuing a fine to an advisor who’s been permanently prohibited from selling mutual funds if they don’t make the fine some kind of deterrent against future actions by others. Until both the firm and advisor are held financially responsible for breaking MFDA rules, those who aren’t interesting in abiding by those rules will continue to break them knowing there won’t be any financial consequences other than being permanently banned.
In early March, WP reported on the case of a former dealing representative broke a number of MFDA rules revolving around leveraged loans, all of which resulted in a permanent prohibition for the former advisor from conducting business with any MFDA member.
Along with that ban came a $250,000 fine.
Given the MFDA’s track record for collecting fines (except in Alberta where liens are possible) against advisors who’ve been permanently prohibited from working with any MFDA firm, it’s a wonder they bother levying any fines in the first place, says another advisor.
“Here’s this huge fine. It becomes a condition if they want to be licensed again,” says an advisor who asked to remain anonymous. “It’s almost like the long-gun registry. Registering long guns will prevent crime [government rationale]. I don’t think so. It’s not going to prevent people from being stupid and it’s not going to prevent crooks from being crooks.”
