HOCUS POCUS, Here Comes Ad-Vocis!

Index of forum topics, talk to us.

HOCUS POCUS, Here Comes Ad-Vocis!

Postby admin » Thu Jun 11, 2015 6:33 pm

Ad-Vocis Hocus Pocus...


Regarding Letters to the Editor: Advisors are already bound by a fiduciary duty, and the self serving, misleading, and deceptive (some would say slippery) comments by Advocis CEO Greg Pollock:

“As a point of clarification, Advocis members who practice in both the insurance and securities sectors are already subject to a common law fiduciary duty. This means that when the facts warrant it a fiduciary standard is imposed.”

This, to an investor sounds very reassuring.

However, to an investment expert, it is mere slick puffery (Advocis Hocus Pocus???) intended to sound reassuring, as all marketing is intended to do. They should call it misleading in this case however, rather than marketing.

Lets break down the misleading....
Here is the first line again,
“Advocis members who practice in both the insurance and securities sectors are already subject to a common law fiduciary duty.”

Sounds very reassuring, but it DOES NOT say they that investors are protected by a fiduciary duty under law, it says they are “subject to”, whatever that might mean. (perhaps if you have $100,000 to spend on lawyers, AFTER being victimized, you will get clarification on what “subject to” means in this clever, vague, marketing line......:)

The second line contains the magic-trick played upon the public.
“This means that when the facts warrant it a fiduciary standard is imposed.”
(Italics my own)

What Mr. Pollock is disclosing to the public here is that a fiduciary standard is ONLY imposed IF certain conditions apply. ("when the facts warrant") In other words, there is NO automatic fiduciary protective duty UNLESS those certain conditions apply. Hocus Pocus!!

And guess what. In the everyday course of selling insurance and mutual funds, those conditions are systemically, endemically designed to NOT APPLY most of the time to most salespersons (aka “advisors). Again, your only way of learning this is if you have $100,000 (and ten years of your life) to spend on lawyers and court time to get this brutally honest answer from the industry. Linked below is one of many, many cases I have seen, where a 90 year old took RBC to court, expecting to be provided with a fiduciary standard, based on RBC advertising promises.......NOPE! Hocus Pocus.

So, your choice is to deal with an investment person who carries a fiduciary (sole-loyalty to you, the client) duty. This kind of person (a truly licensed “advisER” or a “Portfolio Manager” is found by looking here to start with. http://www.portfoliomanagement.org

Or you can take your chances with a guy who says that a fiduciary (sole loyalty to client) standard applies if the conditions warrant it ...and .....wait for it.......Hocus Pocus!

Like an extended warranty from a slick used car seller, or travel insurance purchased from ABC Bank, the clever loopholes are bigger than the marketing promises.....when push comes to shove.

Read the case of Nora Cosgrove v RBC (found here:http://investorvoice.ca/Cases/Investor/Cosgrove/Cosgrove_index.htm ) if you would like to see what it feels like for a 90 year old investor to expect a fiduciary relationship with one of the largest banks in the country. No dice granny! It is like making a complaint to a carnival worker…..

Here’s the web video that shows you how the fake-fiduciary thing works: 4 minutes https://youtu.be/23xWWsGp6vU

Here’s a video about how the non-fiduciary will dupe you with the vague, undefinable and therefore meaningless “suitability” standard. (Meaningless for the client, worth billions of dollars to investment dealers:) https://youtu.be/aWulI3Kwi_A

Here’s a video of how the "faked-advisor” will us the KYC (know your client) form against you in the event of you becoming aware of the many abuses built into the retail investment selling system: 2 minutes https://youtu.be/G0eqlwSUpH8

Here is a link to the systemic fraud of pretending (compete with a false, non licensed “title”) to act like a fiduciary (just like the pretense that Mr. Pollock sells) and then “surreptitiously” switching the client over to one of your special commission salespersons......bait and switch.

Here is the video that clients are using to uncover this fraud and to GET THEIR MONEY BACK!!: https://youtu.be/KH6XMXlfdBw

I wonder if the image below conveys my feelings of this Hocus Pocus…..?


My name is Larry Elford and I am philosophically opposed to Hocus Pocus sales techniques as practiced by many in the industry, and I work to disclose and protect consumers from systemic tricks, sales misconduct, and advisor malpractice.

I can be found at:

Larry Elford, former CFP, CIM, FCSI, Associate Portfolio Manager

Current http://www.investment-bodyguard.com

Twitter: @RecoveredBroker


Facebook group for Fraud victims


Facebook group for Fraud victims across Canada (Small Investors Protection Association of Canada, 1998)


Video site for victims of investment malpractice

http://www.youtube.com/user/investoradv ... ature=mhee



On 2015-06-11, at 4:08 PM, P@bell.net> wrote:

How is it that this Greg Pollock of Advocis can get the coverage with his Investment Executive article with a heading that reads "Advisors are already bound by a fiduciary duty". Is this an absolute true or false statement ? If it is an absolute false statement, why has it been allowed to go in to circulation without someone challenging it ?

If Investment Advisors are already bound by fiduciary duty to investors, someone should inform the CSA, the OSC, IIROC and the OBSI. On second thoughts, maybe Investment Dealers should be advised by the Regulatory authorities that they have been getting away with gross deceptions when dealing unsuitable and inappropriate investments to trusting uneducated investors.
On third thought, maybe a whole group of investor advocates should be alerted that they have been wasting their time trying to get fiduciary obligations attached to Investor Advocate shirt tails.

Please, can someone take issue with the contents of this article and put the world straight.


From: KD
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Investmentexecutive - letters-to-the-editor - Advisors-are-already-bound-by-a-fiduciary-duty

"So why are we trying to fix something that's not broken? ... Like the Small Investor Protection Association, Advocis is calling for increased consumer protection." http://www.investmentexecutive.com/-/le ... ciary-duty

Oh my! It seems it is about time for someone to set the record straight with this guy.

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:34 PM, P <p@bell.net> wrote:
How does this one grab you from Greg Pollock of Advocis, when the heading reads "Advisors are already bound by a fiduciary duty"

http://www.investmentexecutive.com/-/le ... ciary-duty


here is the original reply to SIPA (Small Investor Protection Association)



Here is the letter from SIPA

Site Admin
Posts: 3069
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Return to Click here to view forums

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest