To: Al Collard who wrote (7583 ) 4/4/2002 1:01:47 PM From: CIMA Respond to of 11802 Small investors finally getting the respect they deserve Rob Carrick 00:00 GMT-05:00 Thursday, April 04, 2002 Small investors have always rated small consideration from securities regulators. We could reflect on this sad state of affairs, but let's not. Fact is, 2002 is shaping up as the year that small investors finally start receiving the protections they so desperately need. This is optimistic talk, but it's warranted. For the first time in the 3½ years I have written this column, regulators seem genuinely interested in doing right by small investors. The latest evidence of this is a speech given earlier this week by David Brown, chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission, to mark the opening of Investor Education Month. Usually, Investor Education Month is an excuse for regulators to venture out among the common folk to offer platitudes on how to be a smarter investor. If you've ever seen an adult feign interest in a small child for a few passing moments, then you know the drill. This year, Mr. Brown got serious by outlining some changes the commission is considering to reform the way investment advisers and their clients do business. The OSC's newfound enthusiasm for protecting small investors follows the announcement early in the year that a financial services complaints office will open this July. This office, to be called the National Financial Services OmbudService (NFSO), will funnel complaints to ombudsmen in a number of financial spheres, including the brokerage industry. If this new system works as it should, then it will provide a huge benefit for investors who lack the money to recover losses that result from a broker's improper behaviour. The OSC's approach looks promising as well because it will focus not just on what happens after a client is abused, but also on ways of preventing such problems from happening in the first place. The "fair dealing model" proposes to do this by paying a lot more attention to how brokers dispense advice. In practical terms, brokers could be asked to clearly disclose all fees and commissions they receive through the buying and selling of securities. This would be a welcome change, because full-service brokerages are way too secretive on this subject. Advisers could also be required to scrap the current "know-your-client" form in favour of a more detailed document that would spell out client investing objectives. The point here would be to forestall those situations where clients are sold inappropriate investments that turn out badly. The know-your-client form is supposed to prevent such situations, but it's too often filled out in a perfunctory way that leaves the door wide open for disputes later on. You can sometimes get the impression that brokerage firms don't really care what the advisers they employ are doing, as long as they're good revenue producers. Mr. Brown seems to suggest that this attitude is no longer acceptable. For one thing, he said, investment dealers may be investigated if they don't look into suspicious activities by their employees. Included here would be advisers who generate huge fees and commissions. He also talked about the possibility of introducing rules forcing investment dealers to assume liability for client losses that resulted from repeated bad advice. There could be some duplication here with the work of the brokerage industry's ombudsman, but there's no doubt that an emphasis on liability would work to the advantage of investors. As it stands now, it can cost tens of thousands of dollars to recover losses through the courts. A much cheaper arbitration plan is available through the Investment Dealers Association of Canada, but it won't handle complaints involving more than $100,000. The OSC expects to issue a paper later this spring describing its proposals in greater detail. Working alongside regulators are brokerage types, as well as representatives for retail and institutional investors, money managers and financial planners. Cynics would say a group of this makeup is the perfect bureaucratic tool for burying serious proposals about reforming brokerage practices, but let's reserve judgment. For once, we have regulators talking about what Bay Street has to do to make itself more accountable to investors. That's a hugely encouraging sign. Too often in the past, regulators have espoused an investor-protect-thyself attitude that made it sound as if being wronged by a broker meant you simply weren't paying enough attention to your account, or didn't understand how the industry really works. One last point is that the OSC has shown an intriguing aggressive streak lately in going after rule breakers. Here's hoping the commission tries the same thing in making the brokerage business more friendly to investors. rcarrick@globeandmail.ca © Copyright The Globe and Mail