To: Stephen O who wrote (1640 ) 9/17/1998 1:21:00 PM From: Ray Hughes Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1911
Stephen: Yes, it was Vantage. DK whether RRSP accounts were mingled. Am worried about owned brokerages eating up their parent banks. Mentalities are so vastly different, bankers can't even dream of the ways brokers can screw up in a down market and create huge loss for the parent bank. Also find that Canadian brokerages controlled by banks tend to lose the brokers' understanding of the brokerage business and tend to act to the disadvantage of the client. For example, Bank Of Montreal wants four weeks to clear a cash transaction in an RRSP account, e.g. sell money market funds and buy a bond mutual fund. This is because the bond fund transaction is handled by Nesbitt while the RRSP money market transaction is handled by BOM. BOM and Nesbitt share the same computer system but treat transaction as two conpletely separate business firms. Hence, transfer of money from BOM to Nesbitt to effect a fund purchase is treated as a transfer out from BOM, and a transfer into Nesbitt. This otherwise simple book entry allows BOM to use the client's funds - the dreaded float - without compensation to the client. Such an horrific abuse of the client will, eventually, cause the clients to leave BOM to conduct business with a non-bank-owned brokerage. Maybe someone who understands how not to abuse clients like Merrill Lynch? Canada must realize that there is competition in the world. Bank ownership of brokerages will eventually kill off the Canadian brokers. Then, or course, there is the dreaded D-word and the very reasons for the Glass Steagel Act in the US. Bombing brokerages can kill banks fast! RH