Paul Hogendoorn, Ontario
I agree with the earlier comments about protecting the clients and keeping
the bar high, but that focus and those efforts are all ongoing as a matter of
natural course anyway. To the question of “how would you improve the current
system?”, I’d say that the focus on any changes should be on connecting more
investment money with more entrepreneurial endeavours in a transparent and
secure way. Our economy needs more investment in Canadian enterprises -
more information about, and access to, a broader range of opportunities, not
more regulation. Just my two cents as a career entrepreneur.
Thomas Beyer Calgary, Alberta
Quite a few things could be done, such as: Far
more investor education has to be provided,
by schools, by universities, by the industry,
by reps and by the security commissions.
Investors have to ask more questions, about
the sales reps but also about the products.
Many investors are too ignorant or naive.
Sales commissions and trailing fees are
far too high in Canada compared to other
countries. Ontario should allow all eligible
investors to buy exempt products through
EMDs, not just accredited investors.
Marty Gunderson, Alberta
Seems like the Globe is really drinking FAIRs
kool-aide. Although the mission of FAIR
seems admirable, when your funding comes
from the IIROC convention, things seem to
get a bit one-sided. Unfortunately, the media
seems to be focused on FAIR’s opinions.
Graeme Harris, Ontario
Regrettably this is fast becoming a one-sided debate.
The Globe and Mail editorial is picking up what FAIR (Foundation
for the Advancement of Investors Rights) has been saying on
how the regulations should change. If the EMDs want to ensure
that they are able to raise funds and serve accredited investors
then they are going to need to enter into this public debate.
FAIR listed “a series of fraud cases which retail investors were
lured into schemes involving exempt-market products.” This is
double-speak. It doesn’t say that the exempt-market products
are fraudulent; it says that the frauds involved exempt-market
products. What does that mean? The actual number of
cases involving an exempt-market dealer committing fraud is
negligible compared to the advisory side of the marketplace.
Who is speaking for the EMDs in this debate?
Andrew Stuart , Ontario
Like Paul’s comment above, we need regulations/protection but we also need successful distribution of
risk capital. We should not forget a primary reason to have a financial service industry is to successfully
connect capital between provider and user. We are all aware of the need for innovation which small
and medium sized business can create. We are all aware of risks of loss of capital in all businesses
including large business. I scratch my head some time wondering how the costs to small and medium
sized business for the overhead created by the various service industries associated with raising
capital truly help. I think they hinder the success of the small and medium sized business. Having
listing costs (and onward annual costs) in the order of $500,000 for venture exchange issuers may
not be as much in the interest of the investor as it would be to putt most of this money to productive
work in the business they actual invest in. Applying such capital to highly productive matters such as
to grow sales, lower cost, reach more customers, and expand production might be a few good uses
for it. Can the listing and annual related costs not be lowered through simplification, outsourcing to
low cost jurisdictions to carry out such routine work and thus use more shareholder capital to actually
grow the business on behalf of the shareholders? What is the key value added here that can be
obtained from a lower cost to small and medium sized businesses seeking capital while still protecting
investors with the key information they need? What can not be obtained in a lower cost manner?