Sept, 18th, 2014
To: Competition Bureau l Bureau de la concurrence
Competition Bureau Complaints
Place du Portage I
50 Victoria Street, Room C-114
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0C9
Mailed Sept 25th, 2014
Faxed Sept 25th, 2014 to 819-997-0324
Tweeted Sept 25th, 2104 to @CompBureau
From: The undersigned citizens who are concerned with misrepresentation, false pretense, etc., in the sale of financial (investment) products and services.
Re: Judge's comments about such common practices which go un-noticed by authorities: (there are 155 repetitions of the word "fraud" when it comes to the practices and misrepresentations of CIBC against an elderly couple, in this judgement by The Honorable Jean-Pierre Senécal, J.S.C. , Quebec Superior Court, District of Montreal) Found here:
http://investorvoice.ca/Cases/Investor/Markarian/Markarian_v_CIBCWorldMarketsInc.htmWe, the undersigned, hereby
request a full and complete investigation by the Competition Bureau of Canada, into misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, abuse of market dominance, and any other breaches of the Competition Act of Canada as they may see open to them with which to protect the citizens of Canada from financial abuse by financial professionals.Further to previous correspondence with the Bureau, here, then is more specific and detailed comments from The Honorable Jean-Pierre Senécal, J.S.C. , Quebec Superior Court, that we feel cause this complaint to fit within the mandate of the Competition Act of Canada: (please note that this is just ONE case example, whilst the systemic deceptive practices involved are repeated thousands upon thousands of times in Canada upon ordinary Canadians)
¶ 227 Migirdic obtained the Markarians' signatures on both P-6 and P-7 by means of lies, deceit and false representations, and on false pretexts.
231 The Bank did not properly fulfil its obligations toward Mr. Markarian
¶ 236 The Markarians were the victims of a veritable system of organized fraud from which it was very difficult to protect oneself because of the skill and knowledge of Migirdic, who was the Bank's only representative
246 Migirdic was presented to him from the start as someone "honest" and "knowledgeable", and, what is more, as a vice-president of CIBC Wood Gundy. That greatly impressed Mr. Markarian and reinforced his idea that his advisor was eminently worthy of his trust, particularly since that same Migirdic a few years later became a [TRANSLATION] "vice-president and director" of the firm, a "promotion" that could but confirm his merits. Later, we will see that those titles were actually only marketing tools and recognition for a large sales volume.
251 The Markarians were actually justified in trusting Migirdic and CIBC, because of the very context of confidence that prevails and must prevail in an investor-broker relationship and because of the broker's obligations toward clients (see paras. 481 to 506 below). The Court is of the opinion that the climate of trust is even greater in regard to a bank (see paras. 498 and 499 below)
¶ 253 Furthermore, the Bank failed to properly fulfil its obligations toward the Markarians, which contributed to their being fooled (that matter is examined beginning at para. 262 below).
¶ 254 Hence, it was in that climate of trust, in which the defendant and its representative had real duties and obligations and in which the plaintiffs knew them and could rely on them, that the fraud was committed and vitiated the plaintiffs' consent.
¶ 262 But there is more here. This is a case where the defendant can be held liable because of its own faults. It itself committed faults in the performance of its duties and the fulfilment of its responsibilities, including false representations about the quality of its representative
MISLEADING TITLES
¶ 263 The defendant attributed to Migirdic fake titles, i.e. "vice-president" and "vice-president and director", in addition to letting him use the title "specialist in retirement investments". Those titles were false representations that misled the plaintiffs, hid reality from them, disinformed them, comforted them in their confidence in Migirdic, reduced their distrust, and contributed to Migirdic's fraud. The defendant committed a fault in terms of its obligation to inform and advise, in addition to misleading the plaintiffs.
¶ 265 In the defendant's operations, these titles also have that meaning, but not that meaning alone! They are given as well to any representative (also called an "investment advisor" or previously a "financial consultant") who reaches a certain level of commissions in a given year, in short, who "sells" a lot and brings in a lot of commissions. A person is awarded the title essentially in "recognition" of work and as a marketing tool, as the president of CIBC Wood Gundy, Tom Monahan, acknowledged. However, to have the title of "vice-president" or "vice-president and director" adds no new responsibility or any management role. What is more, it testifies to neither greater competence nor more reliability.
¶ 266 In the defendant's operations, the titles are, in fact attributed to many people. In 1995, there were 206 vice-presidents and 44 vice-presidents and directors out of 556 representatives. In 1997, there were 217 vice-presidents and 109 vice-presidents and directors out of 612 representatives. In 1999, there were 197 vice-presidents and 101 vice-presidents and directors out of 725 representatives, the proportions were about the same in 2000. That year, about 300 of the 700 representatives had a title!
¶ 267 The problem is that clients do not know that these titles are simply marketing tools, i.e. a means to convince them that they have an excellent representative, and recognition for the volume of commissions. Clients therefore believe they have a "very special" and "eminently acknowledged" representative when the representative has the title of "vice-president" or "vice-president and director". That was what Mr. Markarian in fact believed, as he testified. Richard Papazian, another witness (and also a victim) thought the same thing. So the titles create a false feeling of trust, comfort and prestige, the role of which is not trivial in the commission of fraud.
¶ 268 The plaintiffs were the victims of these false representations by the defendant in their regard.
¶ 269 Migirdic received the title of vice-president in 1986, then vice-president and director in the early 1990s. He retained the titles until he left, because of the enormous volume of commissions he generated. In fact, the titles increased Mr. Markarian's trust in Migirdic and prompted him to guard against him and his actions even less. The defendant committed a fault in acting to ensure that.
¶ 270 The Court wholly subscribes to the comments of Mr. Justice Donald Gordon in Blackburn v. Midland Walwyn Capital inc. [See Note 19 below], a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice:
Note 19: [2003] O.J. 621 (O.S.C.J.).
[121] Promoting George Georgiou to the position of vice-president was purely a marketing gimmick, an intentional misrepresentation to the public by Midland. The public would consider a vice-president to have special status, be more knowledgeable and influential.
[123] What is more problematic is the process. The promotion resulted from the influence of the National Sales Manager. This clearly demonstrates the high position sales had in the corporate structure and, conversely, the lack of importance allocated to compliance.
¶ 272 In the Court's opinion, the titles "vice-president" and "vice-president and director" have no place in the brokerage field when they apply to simple representatives. They then constitute a mere "marketing gimmick", to use Gordon J.'s words, just a misrepresentation contrary to the duty of a brokerage firm to seek to protect its clients and to inform them well. By continuing to use those titles, brokerage firms expose themselves to criticism, as in this case.
¶ 273 As for the title "specialist in retirement investments" or "retirement specialist", it was not a title given Migirdic by the defendant, but the defendant authorized him to use it (among others on his business cards). Once again, it was a way to instill trust in retirees and prompt them to rely on their representative in all confidence. In actuality, the title meant nothing more than that Migirdic had many retired clients, which did not make him more competent in that area and also did not make him a better representative for those people (much to the contrary, Migirdic exploited their greater vulnerability).
All of the above criminal or civil violations of the public, are common, standard, and daily practices by the investment industry, upon millions of Canadians. It is a fundamental cause of severe economic and financial abuse of Canadians. It is ignored and accepted by captured and willfully blind regulators. We ask the Competition Bureau to not simply pass the buck on these important matters, to these very same industry-paid regulators, as it has tried to do in the past, but act in a professional and proper manner as provided in the Competition Act.========================================================================================================================================
Preamble to an article describing the worlds largest bait and switch fraud:The Grand Deception is named after the man who coined the term, Stan Buell. He is an engineer by profession, and old school gentleman and a victim of financial abuse by financial professionals.
He began the Small Investor Protection Association in 1998 after seeing a need for an organization which was not captured and beholden to the financial industry, and whose sole mandate was to protect the public from acts of financial predation by the financial industry.
He learned the hard way that the banking and brokerage industry of the 21st Century is not at all the same as it was in the 20th Century. It has morphed from an industry of trust and integrity to one of mistrust and addict-like behaviours to money. I have created a comparison in my mind between the complete "winner steal all" mentality of a Los Angeles riot (or some New Orlean's looters when given the opportunity) and the similar acts of bankers and brokers when it is learned that the "authorities" are nowhere in sight. I give my own long winded (15 minute) view of what this looks like, with this as the tag line:
"former stockbroker, reveals a dozen "tricks of the trade" used to harm 30o million Canadians and Americans. Tricks by brokers, regulators, and others who claim to serve the public interest."
The video is here for those who might wish to view it,
http://youtu.be/EyAuod1QxhQ?list=UUy8dp ... JBa_l0w7AQThe attachment 10628314_10153177708548868_1307314234225819825_n.png is no longer available
You would think that there is nothing at all new under the sun, by this time. After all, I began with my Canadian Securities Course in 1980, stayed in the business from 1984 to 2004, and researched it like a man possessed from 2004 to 2014. But no, we find that the most important ingredients in making money the old fashioned way……those who do it by subterfuge and misdirection…..the most important ingredients are kept quite hidden and secret. They are the "tricks of the trade" if you will, and these are what this entire "flogg" (forum/blog) has been about since 2004. The hidden tricks of the trade.
What is wrong with having tricks of the trade? After all, every trade has their secrets, and their methods of getting the job done faster, easier, better, from mechanics to bricklayers. Well, my trade was a profession, and one where I was taught that my customer's best interests must come first, that I must not use my skill and knowledge to my own personal benefit, but rather to their sole benefit. Little did I realize until well into the game, that the game was changing, right under my feet. Those at the top of the financial and regulatory game were sick of putting clients first and making money the "old fashioned way". They could make it all in a few years, if they took a few shortcuts.
This flogg has been about those shortcuts that financial professionals now take to "get rich quick". It is about using the "trust and integrity" earned by bankers of the last century, and selling out this trust and integrity for faster and faster rewards. My financial industry has become identical to a friends house-sitter experience of late, where a young recovering addict stayed at his house, while he visited the other side of the country for a month, and upon his return, found his TV and his snowblower had been stolen and pawned to feed an addiction…….that is the investment banker of today. Some are literally closer to addicts than professionals. My proof of such a statement is found in the article at the end of this intro.
A professional who is willing to violate his own duty of loyalty and care to his clients, and to use a biblical phrase from Peter Benedek, CFA, blog "placing an obstacle before the blind". The investment industry, outside of those with a rare degree of personal and professional self respect, are today specialists in placing obstacles before the blind, of using their talent and skills to take advantage of their customers, rather than to help them.
Here is one of the best ways how, and Stan has called it the GRAND DECEPTION:
And here is the article itself:SYSTEMIC INVESTMENT DECEPTION“The FIDUCIARY standard of investment advice is clear, objective, and protective of the investor. The SUITABILITY standard of care is vague, undefinable and subjective. It allows investors to be sold nearly anything, as long as someone calls it an “investment". It can even mean selling the most expensive investment choice for compensation reasons. Nearly every “advisor” and sponsoring dealer are bound only by the “suitability” standard. This may be the greatest undisclosed risk facing investors today”
Just recently the creator of world famous DILBERT cartoons, Scott Adams, made this statement on CNBC about a risk ordinarily hidden from the public: “Beware financial advisors” is the tag line quoted from him. (video here:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101906843 I worked 20-plus years inside Canada’s top investment dealers and never was I able to hold a copy of my license or registration. This was always handled by the investment firm. I now better understand why, and I would like to share it with you.
First a warning: This article contains both facts and some of my own opinions. The facts are what they are, and many links are enclosed for readers to search, read and come to their own conclusions. My opinion is biased, and based on the following; I simply do not believe that professionals or persons who promise to act in a position of trust, should then be allowed to betray that trust, and take advantage of consumers. Please take whatever you can from this information and leave behind anything which you may not agree with. It is intended to create discussion.
Although rules and procedures about “client-first” behaviors seemed fairly clear cut, I also never found resolution to the question of whether sales came first, and trusted advice second, or the other way around. The deeds of the firms never quite matched the words or promises.
It was in 2013 when a conversation with Stan Buell, caused us both to step back and to question even our most basic beliefs about risks to investors financial health.
Stan was on the Investor Advisory Panel at the OSC (Ontario Securities Commission) and is the well respected founder of SIPA (Small Investors Protection Association of Canada 1998
http://www.sipa.ca )
Stan mentioned attending a gathering of regulators and overhearing two securities commission lawyers discuss spelling variations of “advisOR” verses “advisER”. This was years ago and it never occurred to either Stan or myself that something hidden in plain sight could form such a grand consumer deception. The thought of such simple trickery as spelling variations, was not something which had ever entered our minds for Canadian financial services providers.
We undertook over a year of research into those two key words, “advisor” and “adviser”, writing to, and getting clarification from U.S., as well as Canadian securities regulators. We learned that the difference in meaning is significant enough to cut the average investors retirement money by about half. The other half will be in the hands of the investment service provider.
Investors are being deceived and then shortchanged by the industry and regulatory blindness. Stan calls it The Grand Deception, and says he has never seen anything of quite this magnitude to harm investors in his two or more decades of investor protection work. And Stan has seen it all.
Most people would prefer to believe that "Adviser" and "Advisor" are simply spelling variations for the same word, with the same meaning. To imagine these tricks from some of the world’s most trusted financial institutions is simply too much for many to grasp. Cognitive dissonance is far preferable to such an ugly possibility.
The dictionary and some business newspapers help feed the myth (spelling differences, yet same meaning), but the question of whether or not they are identical “in law” remains hidden to investors.
The head of the SEC and the fine print at the CSA (Canadian Securities Administrators) is somewhat clearer on the facts, as this following example shows.
At this video link are 88 words in just over one minute from SEC Chair Mary Jo White, describing the differences in legal duties to clients between those legally registered as "adviser" and those who simply call themselves "advisor" (no legality, just an arbitrarily chosen “title”).
http://youtu.be/TqBSiR6VwP4?list=UUy8dpTRZHEz-0JBa_l0w7AQ The following SEC INVESTOR BULLETIN came to me as I was writing this:
"Financial professional titles and licenses are not the same."
http://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/ib_making_sense.pdf And then there is this from the CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, an official website of the United States Government. They say this
""Financial advisers: don’t take their credentials at face value."
http://www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/financial-advisers-dont-take-their-credentials-at-face-value/?utm_content=buffer55ff0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=bufferThis is what the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) said recently when questioned:
“We do not prescribe specific titles to be used by those persons who are either dealing or advising in securities. Most securities legislation requires that an individual who holds themselves out as being registered to in fact be registered and to indicate the actual category of registration.”
Chris Besko
Acting General Counsel & Acting Director for the CSA, Employed at the Manitoba Securities Commission
The comments in quotes above, seem
to suggest both, that they do have rules...... and that they don’t follow those rules. Regulators in Canada seem quite blind to something as simple as deceit. Thankfully, civil courts are starting to recognize and award damages for this misrepresentation, but consumers should not be forced into civil court at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and years out of their lives, to receive the industry required standards of “honesty, fairness, and good faith”.
Search the license or registration category of your “advice” giver here in Canada
CSA (Canada)
https://www.securities-administrators.ca/nrs/nrsearch.aspx?id=850 If it says “dealing representative” you have a “salesperson” according to the CSA and not someone registered or responsible to act as “adviser” or “advisor”.
Search the license or registration category of your “advice” giver here in the USA
FINRA for US “Broker” search:
http://brokercheck.finra.org/Search/Search.aspx If it says “broker” then you have a salesperson, regardless of what they prefer to use on the business cards.
Stan and I learned that the the trickery is in regulators letting commission sales-persons promise or imply to the public that they are registered or licensed as "Financial Advisors". By using the spelling variation not used in the Securities Acts of Canada or the USA, they seem able to imply the responsibility of a professional fiduciary Adviser, while carrying only the responsibility of a commission sales person.
I call this the “World’s Greatest Bait and Switch”, and I made a video to this effect even before working with Stan on spelling tricks. If you have been taken in by deception, this video may help describe what has taken place and shows info that some investors have used to get their money back.
http://youtu.be/KH6XMXlfdBw?list=UUy8dpTRZHEz-0JBa_l0w7AQ )
It (the Grand Deception) has less to do with spelling, and everything to do with what the spelling trick allows sellers and dealers to accomplish, namely the “implying” or “pretending” the attributes of a fiduciary (undivided professional loyalty to customer) whilst delivery of a “suitability” obligation only. (“suitable” is as vague and undefinable a standard as “edible”, “drinkable”, or “do-able”) See “suitability” loopholes explained here in a 2 minute video.
http://youtu.be/aWulI3Kwi_A?list=UUy8dpTRZHEz-0JBa_l0w7AQOr even worse, as Goldman Sachs and others were found out doing, figuring out to make even MORE money by putting clients into bad investments, selling toxic junk, in other words, and perhaps even shorting, or placing bets that the junk they sold would then crash. Becoming specialists in "placing obstacles before the blind".
Neil Weinberg, former Editor in Chief of American Banker Mag puts it into his own words in this OCT 18, 2013 article in American Banker Magazine:“Financial Advisor Chicanery: Imagine a two-tiered health care system in which some doctors were legally obligated to do what's right for their patients and others, like snake-oil salesmen of yore, could recommend whatever treatments made them the most money, as long as they didn't kill patients outright.”
“Now imagine that the shysters did all they could to blend in with the real doctors. That's effectively the type of system we have today among the people Americans count on to tell them how to invest their life's savings. Registered investment advisors must, by law, put clients' interests first. Many thousands of other "advisors" at places like Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and smaller shops are held to a much lower "suitability" standard.”
“In essence, even though these people often refer to themselves as "financial advisors" or by some other comfort-inducing title, they're really glorified salesmen. Some do a great job serving their clients. Others don't. It's up to them. Under the law, as long as they avoid putting an 85-year-old widow into an exotic derivative with a 20-year lockup, they're bulletproof.”
“Few clients know this fiduciary-suitability gap exists. The suitability crowd has worked tirelessly to keep the standard low and the distinctions murky. The cost to the public is incalculable but huge.” Full article is found here:
http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink ... 940-1.html How much is the financial damage to the public? Billions of dollars can be garnered each year by those who purport to hold a professional license/registration while neither holding the license nor the professional duty implied. This occurs today despite rules, laws regulators, and authorities who should be applying those rules to protect the public.
This one minute commentary from a victim of financial abuse by financial professionals is candid and accurate, according to our findings:
http://youtu.be/TYu_td_bvs8?list=UUy8dpTRZHEz-0JBa_l0w7AQOne illustration of the harm done by deceit is shown in a study by pension expert Keith Ambachsteer at the University of Toronto. Keith points out that retail Canadian mutual fund investors (those typically served by the “salesperson-advisor”) are receiving a “haircut” by the industry of 3.8% per year on mutual funds alone. When the report was written in 2007 this amounted to $25 billion each year taken from investors. Today, with nearly one trillion in mutual fund assets, this amount could be closer to $40 billion taken out of the life savings of Canadians.
Link to U of T study “The $25 Billion Dollar Pension Haircut”, here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzE_LMPDi9UOYTJiY2NmMDEtM2Y4ZS00OTBjLWE3ZjUtNGYxODAzZjkyOTkw/editWhether you agree or not that a “spelling trick” is even possible in Canada and the U.S. is not the point of this article. The point is.......for investors to understand whether or not their financial “advice giver” has a FIDUCIARY duty to them, or the legally vague, undefined, and self-determined “SUITABILITY” obligation. The difference is enough to easily cut your retirement in half. That is the million dollar question for every investor, and in my opinion it is the greatest, and best concealed risk the retail investor faces today.
Divided (and non-disclosed) loyalties, first to the investment dealer, second to commissions, third, finally to the client (some good advisors struggle to avoid this but are marginalized) are an investment risk that the investment industry is not yet ready to tell customers about, despite the requirement of “fairness, honesty and good faith”.
Without sufficient time or space in this article to get into solutions needed to right these wrongs, I refer readers who wish to go further to find the flogg topic titled “Solutions, Self Defense and Best Practices “ at this site
http://www.investoradvocates.ca .
I look forward to any readers joining me on Facebook or Twitter, where I try to use social media for social good.
Some well informed journalists and investment expert writings on this topic, for those who would like to obtain other perspectives:
Wall Street Journal
"Much like garbagemen rechristening themselves “sanitation engineers,” the folks who flog investments are tweaking their titles to make what they do seem fancier and more impressive than it is."
[url]viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34&p=3792#p3792[/url] (wall street journal Blog article)
American Banker Magazine
"even though these people often refer to themselves as "financial advisors" or by some other comfort-inducing title, they're really glorified salesmen. "
http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink ... 940-1.htmlFinancial Times
"Trust me, I am a financial advisor" is not good enough...
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/21b52478 ... al%20TimesNew York Times
"“The S.E.C. has been studying issues related to investment-adviser and broker-dealer regulation and overall market conditions for over 10 years,”
“It’s puzzling to me why you would ask an agency to conduct a study when it is already an expert in the regulatory issues being discussed.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/your- ... rk%20TimesWashington Post
"...the SEC enforces the standards for fiduciaries — but brokers, aiming to head off more regulations, created the suitability rules themselves."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... ign=bufferWall Street Journal
"...Most people do not realize that financial advisers (also known as financial planners, financial consultants, investment counselors, money managers, portfolio managers, wealth managers and other names) come in two flavours."
http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2014/10/09 ... d-brokers/Ron Rhoades Asst. Professor, Program Chair, Financial Planning Program, Alfred State College, Alfred, NY;
"As long as American consumers cannot discern between ethical actors (who adhere to a bona fide fiduciary standard at all times,…. and actors bound only by the weak suitability standard, the demand for financial planning and investment advice will stagnate. "
http://scholarfp.blogspot.ca/2014/11/le ... ue-to.htmlCFA Peter Benedek reviews "Is Your Advisor Deceiving You?"
"The professional who is willing to violate his own duty of loyalty and care to his clients is "placing an obstacle before the blind".
http://retirementaction.com/2014/06/13/ ... e-16-2014/ Ron Rhoades Asst. Professor, Program Chair, Financial Planning Program, Alfred State College, Alfred, NY;
"I believe that holding yourself out as a trusted advisor, and not accepting fiduciary status and its burdens and restraints upon conduct, is tantamount to fraud."
http://scholarfp.blogspot.ca/2014/10/i- ... lieve.htmlMake advisors work for investors, Financial Post
"Anything else is fraud, because the seller is delivering a service different from what the consumer thinks he or she is buying. "
Edward Waitzer article, Financial Post · Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2011) (Mr. Waitzer is a Bay Street Lawyer and former Securities Commission chair, and this quote ( by another person) appeared in his article.
[url]http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/02/14/make-advisors-work-for-investors/
[/url]
Canada
Dr Jin Choi, Ph.D.
"...allows a financial advisor to say, with a straight face, that financial advisers are obligated by law to have their clients' best interest at heart, and at the same time sell products that line their own pockets at the expense of the client."
http://www.moneygeek.ca/weblog/2014/06/ ... iving-you/ Former Hedge fund employee, Ph.D, blog
Larry Elford is a former CFP, CIM, FCSI, Associate Portfolio Manager, retired from the financial services industry and lives in Alberta. He protects families and institutions from the hidden, systemic, risks of the financial industry.
[url] http://www.investment-bodyguard.com[/url]
Twitter: @RecoveredBroker
http://www.youtube.com/user/investoradvocate?feature=mheehttp://www.investoradvocates.caSigned:
Larry Elford, Founder and director Investor Advocates, Alberta
http://www.investoradvocates.caStan Buell, Founder and director Small Investor Protection Association of Canada 1998.
http://www.sipa.caAlexander Clark, Private Investor, Okotoks Alberta
Garth Rustand, founder Investors-Aid, Vancouver, B.C.
http://investors-aid.caRobert Pouliot,
http://www.rcp-partners.com, Fiduciary rating of asset management companies, director of FAIR Canada
Ken Kivenko, P. Eng. Investment Industry Expert, Toronto
Keith Ambachtsheer, Director of the Rotman International Centre for Pension Management (ICPM), an Adjunct Professor of Finance, kpa-advisory.com
Dr. Jin Choi, Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics, specializing in Financial Mathematics, author of "The Short Book on Investments For Canadians"
http://www.moneygeek.caDavid Stanley, PhD, Private Investor, Investment Commentator and Author, Rockwood, Ontario
Joe Killoran, 1979 Ivy MBA, Investment Industry Ethics Commentator since 1987, Kimberly, Ontario
Cory Lanterman, Private Investor, Calgary, Alberta
Murray Candlish, Private Investor, Daysland, Alberta
Diane Rowson, Private Investor
Don Stewart, Private Investor, Edmonton, Alberta
Andrew Teasdale, CFA, BA Hons Econ, Independent Consultant, Toronto, Ontario, blog.moneymanagedproperly.com, @depthdynamics
Mike McDonald, Private Investor, Lethbridge, Alberta
Peter Whitehouse, Private Investor, Mississauga, Ontario
William David Butts, Private Investor, Alberta
Don Logan, Private Investor, Edmonton, Alberta
Bruce Duckworth, Private Investor, Calgary, Alberta
Lor'e Arens, Private Investor
Debra McFadden, Private Investor, Windsor Ontario
Jim Herzberg, Private Investor, Winnipeg, Manitoba
Clayton Wilson, Private Investor, Nova Scotia
Reid Mosley, Private Investor, Alberta
Lorenzo D'Alesio, Private Investor, Montreal
Harrison Dollard, Private Investor, Alberta
Eric Clark, Private Investor, Ottawa
Reid Moseley, Private Investor, Alberta
Prem Sikka, Professor of Accounting, Centre for Global Accountability, Essex Business School, University of Essex, Colchester, UK
Layne Arthur, Private Investor, Sylvan Lake, Alberta
Brian Sexton, Private Investor, Alberta, Calgary
Derek McCardell, Private Investor, Edmonton Alberta
Lana Stewart, Private Investor, Edmonton Alberta
Ken Zilliox, Private Investor, Edmonton Alberta
Gary Logan, former Detective Sergeant- Corporate Section, Fraud Squad, Toronto Police Service
Peter Whitehouse, PLI Consulting, Mississauga, Ontario
Robb Engen, Money expert, blogger, bi-weekly column contributor to Toronto Star.
http://www.boomerandecho.comAlan Blanes, Kelowna, BC. Delegate to the 2014 Council of Canadians AGM in Hamilton
Jean Lespérance, blogger at Canadian Financial DIY
William D. Nichol, Director, Canadian Justice Review Board of Canada
Peter Benedek, RetirementAction.com
Peter Stack, Private Investor, Calgary, Alberta
Mildred Jagdeo, Private Investor, British Columbia
============
Canadian Finance Minister Joe Oliver correspondence Dec 4, 2014:
"It is troubling to hear of the deceptions being perpetrated by advisors".