Posted by: Yuval Bar-Or
on Jun 05, 2011
I was recently informed by one of my former students that some advisors don't like to acquire gold for their clients. The stated reason is that they may not be compensated for bullion transactions and are therefore more likely to try to convince clients not to make such purchases. While a decision not to purchase gold for a client may be correct for a variety of reasons (liquidity and diversification come to mind), the decision should not be motivated by the advisor's compensation mechanism. This is yet another case of potential conflict of interest for advisors.
Posted by: admin
on Apr 03, 2011
On March 29, 2011 an article appeared on InvestmentNews.com under the title “Advisers not charging enough: Study”.
The article goes on to highlight results of a study by PriceMetrix Inc., a Toronto, Canada based firm that “helps retail wealth management firms and their advisors optimize selling efforts, manage clients, identify growth opportunities, and enhance practice management” (from pricemetrix.com).
A main message in the study is that “… many financial advisors are foregoing an average of $20,000 in fees because they are under pricing their fee-based business…”
Posted by: Yuval D Bar-Or
on Jul 22, 2010
Several months ago I sounded the alarm when it seemed a fiduciary standard for brokers had been taken off the table (See March 4, 2010 blog article). It is now time to revisit progress on this front.
Posted by: Yuval D Bar-Or
on Mar 04, 2010
It appears proposed legislation to enforce fiduciary duty on brokers (force them to provide advice that’s in clients’ best interests) has been taken off the table. Senator Dodd’s financial services reform bill is to be introduced to the Senate Banking Committee this week, and will not contain a fiduciary requirement for brokers. According to Clark at Large, "it looks like the advocates of a comprehensive fiduciary duty are on the ropes."
