never heard of trailer fees have you?
CFP doesn't mean shit
Start with Money Sense. It's decent magazine with an emphasis on beginners. Read widely and trust nobody.
The banks knew that the so called sub-prime crisis was going to hit and yet they didn't say boo to any of their clients. They just continued to fleece people.
You're obviously long on big theories and short on practical knowledge. Not very many people in Canada got screwed by investing in mortgage pools. It was institutions and hedge funds that got screwed. Yes, yes, individuals invest in hedge funds...but these are well-off investors, not working-class people trying to squeak by. The "ordinary" people that got screwed by the mortgage crisis were people that took on more debt than they could afford. Even then, it was far worse in the states than here. So what's your beef?
Also: a dude trying to sell you a book and a story has far more of an agenda than a bank financial advisor.
I agree with what your saying although I still have little respect for Bank planners as they more time than often push the products of that bank opposed to more suitable options. Even the pfp is a bank only accreditation a step down from industry recognized cfp.
This is also why, not being with a bank is a good idea so your advisor has better options of investment tools than a grunt pushing bank product.
CFP means as much as a CLU, T.E.P., R.F.C, RFP.
As a rule, a bank branch will sell proprietary products. It's no different than a Volvo dealership only selling Volvos. In exchange for buying their in-house products, you don't get charged transaction fees (which people love to bitch about when that's what they're facing instead).
If you want to buy funds that aren't offered by your bank, you can go to the fund company directly or get an independent advisor (they do exist) if you have the cash. Like everything else in life, more money gives you more options. A guy with $5,000 and a $100-a-month PAC is obviously not going to be able to afford the biggest hot-shit advisor in town. You can also buy and hold GICs, many bonds, PPNs and segregated funds directly, although you may not get as good a rate as you would through an advisor.
I mean, a balanced fund from Big Bank A is going to be much the same as a balanced fund from Big Bank B, anyway. Again, individual stocks are not suitable for most non-high-net-worth investors. The punters will kick and scream about holding stocks directly, and then shit their pants when the value of their accounts swing 10, 20 or 40% in a day. The commissions (even for something as simple and necessary as a portfolio rebalance) simply eat up too much of the total if your account is not large enough. I'm not saying that no small investors should ever hold stocks directly, but they should make sure that they're as risk-tolerant as they think they are. And the stocks should be held as part of a long-term financial plan, after taking stock of your goals, means obligations and timelines (a questionnaire that every mutual fund "pusher" is required, at a minimum to go through with the client). Trading stocks for the sake of trading stocks with no goal other than "making money" can be an expensive hobby, and possibly financial suicide for someone who doesn't really know what they're doing.
CFP and PFP are really the only financial planning designations that will matter going forward. Anything less is not enough, and anything more is for more specialized activity. RFP is hardly even a going concern anymore. The designation got grandfathered into the CFP years ago, but you try getting hired as a planner with nothing but an RFP today. Also, PFP is not bank-only...it's offered through the Canadian Securities Institute. Granted, it does have more of a bank focus, though.
Ironically, an independent Investment Advisor needs less accreditation to set up shop than a Financial Planner in a bank branch. Edward Jones and Investors Group advertise like mad to draw people from other professions into becoming financial advisors as quickly as possible in order to generate short-term gain for the company. Who would you rather have as an advisor: someone with a BA/B.Com, years of financial education, a respected designation and the vetting of one of the oldest and most successful companies in the country, or someone who was working at Future Shop 18 months ago? I'm not saying that there's not value in independence, but it's not the be-all and end-all of financial guidance.
EVERYONE has some kind of an angle, even the guy telling you to ignore everything and take a stab in the dark.
