⚔️ CHROMATICA OUT NOW ⚔️

Follow us on TikTok
Sign in to follow this  
society

Canadian Provinces Cracking Down On Financial Advisors Abuse

Economy

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/saskatchewan-regulates-financial-advisors-but-most-canadians-still-vulnerable-1.1463436

 

Saskatchewan is the second Province (Quebec being the first) to legislate strict regulations to protect consumers from misleading and bad information to consumers from financial planners and financial advisors

 

More importantly, minimum education thresholds are also being introduced so that not just anyone can call themselves an advisor as the current Federal Laws do not require education to obtain a permit to sell financial assets meaning anyone in Canada who doesn't really know anything can call themselves a financial advisor and try to push sales of services on people without even really knowing what they are talking about

 

They are also pushing for the Province of Ontario to join as Ontario is the Nation's Central financial hub and headquarters for most large financial institutions Including most of the largest banks. If Ontario adopts simmilar regulations it would influence sales practices and standards for the entire Nation, even Provinces without protections or stricy laws.

  • YAAAS 1
  • Love 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
JRCF29

Not sure how I feel about this tbh. I think it should be up to the individual if they are going to seek advice from someone with or without an educational background in it. Maybe someone has no formal education in the market/economics/statistics but is still a good advisor :shrug: Of course malpractice laws and regulations would still apply. 

Don't Call Me Gaga

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economy
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, JRCF29 said:

Not sure how I feel about this tbh. I think it should be up to the individual if they are going to seek advice from someone with or without an educational background in it. Maybe someone has no formal education in the market/economics/statistics but is still a good advisor :shrug: Of course malpractice laws and regulations would still apply. 

I do agree some ppl without a formal education on it could still be smart and know what they are talking about but, there's others that may not and it could hurt consumers that know very little on investing and listen to their advice

 

Some ppl may not even think to ask about their background. They may just assume a "financial advisor" must be educated and if they aren't and don't know what they are talking about, naive people may have no way if knowing and could be fed bad advice they end up following

 

At least with a minimum education you have to have some idea of what ur talking about otherwise you wouldn't pass the course

Edited by Economy

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
JRCF29
Just now, Economy said:

I do agree some ppl without a formal education on it could still be smart and know what they are talking about but, there's others that may not and it could hurt consumers that know very little on investing and listen to their advice

 

At least with a minimum education you have to have some idea of what ur talking about otherwise you wouldn't pass the course

My concern is that it would give government license (:ally:) to go after people that are a) offering solicited financial advice but b) are not claiming to be a licensed or formally-educated financial advisor. It reminded me immediately of a Florida lawsuit, in which the stat fined a health coach $750 for offering meal/diet tips even though she never presented herself as a licensed or certified dietician. I just don't want to see well-meaning and innocent people ensnared in a web of over-regulation

Don't Call Me Gaga

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
uo111
25 minutes ago, JRCF29 said:

Not sure how I feel about this tbh. I think it should be up to the individual if they are going to seek advice from someone with or without an educational background in it. Maybe someone has no formal education in the market/economics/statistics but is still a good advisor :shrug: Of course malpractice laws and regulations would still apply. 

Ah well, I hope you don’t take this stance on everything. A “doctor” with no education can kill you. Then again, a “financial advisor” with no education can destroy your life so, maybe you don’t care :lana:

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economy
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, uo111 said:

Ah well, I hope you don’t take this stance on everything. A “doctor” with no education can kill you. Then again, a “financial advisor” with no education can destroy your life so, maybe you don’t care :lana:

To be fair someone can self-teach themselves enough to know a lot about investing and finances. Most of the most successful investors of all time did not take formal studies for it

 

I know a lot myself and I never took a course either.

 

Doctors is far too much technical knowledge to self-teach

 

But I get ur point. Just because some unformally taught advisors may know what they are talking about doesn't mean all do. So some could still damage pole lives

 

Not to mention regulations againsnt misleading information is also good as well

Edited by Economy

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
JRCF29
15 minutes ago, uo111 said:

Ah well, I hope you don’t take this stance on everything. A “doctor” with no education can kill you. Then again, a “financial advisor” with no education can destroy your life so, maybe you don’t care :lana:

Right, but "doctor" is a certification awarded upon completion of an (educational) doctorate program; I also find it unreasonable and irresponsible to compare a field involving the prescription of medicines, physical exams, invasive and non-invasive procedures, etc. to a field with "advice" built into the name. If somebody, as in my above example, is offering solicited medical advice (in the above example, dietary) but not claiming to be a) formally educated on the topic, b) licensed independently, or c) licensed by the state, and is not, say, fraudulently prescribing medications, then restricting their ability to do so is a violation of free speech and the courts found as much in a 2012 case (Cooksey v. Futrell et al.) 

Don't Call Me Gaga

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
uo111
1 hour ago, JRCF29 said:

Right, but "doctor" is a certification awarded upon completion of an (educational) doctorate program; I also find it unreasonable and irresponsible to compare a field involving the prescription of medicines, physical exams, invasive and non-invasive procedures, etc. to a field with "advice" built into the name. If somebody, as in my above example, is offering solicited medical advice (in the above example, dietary) but not claiming to be a) formally educated on the topic, b) licensed independently, or c) licensed by the state, and is not, say, fraudulently prescribing medications, then restricting their ability to do so is a violation of free speech and the courts found as much in a 2012 case (Cooksey v. Futrell et al.) 

I’m reading all about this case but it seems like the case is about the Board threatening legal action, causing his to alter his website, without actually giving him any “official” review or due process.

Nothing about the case, that I can see, indicates that he was actually allowed to do the things he was doing. The Board made numerous mistakes in how they went about contacting him and threatening him with legal action which is where the “violating free speech” comes in.

The merits of the website were not under review in the case, so no conclusions about what he did/said on the website could be drawn from that case in particular. 

I could be wrong, but I don’t think the conclusion you came to is completely accurate.

This is what I read, in addition to a few summaries. 
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/12-2084/12-2084-2013-06-27.html

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
JRCF29
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, uo111 said:

I’m reading all about this case but it seems like the case is about the Board threatening legal action, causing his to alter his website, without actually giving him any “official” review or due process.

Nothing about the case, that I can see, indicates that he was actually allowed to do the things he was doing. The Board made numerous mistakes in how they went about contacting him and threatening him with legal action which is where the “violating free speech” comes in.

The merits of the website were not under review in the case, so no conclusions about what he did/said on the website could be drawn from that case in particular. 

I could be wrong, but I don’t think the conclusion you came to is completely accurate.

This is what I read, in addition to a few summaries. 
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/12-2084/12-2084-2013-06-27.html

At issue in this case was whether or not Steve Cooksey had standing to bring a censorship case against the Board.

The Court did not rule on the content of the website, but did overturn a lower court's prior dismissal of Cooksey's case on the grounds that the actions taken against him by the board would be "likely to deter a person... from the exercise of First Amendment rights." Further, the court found that Cooksey had reason to believe he could be prosecuted under the North Carolina Dietetics/Nutrition Practice Act, and therefore had standing to bring the preemptive case. 

Judge Thacker further found that the claims "present[ed] the question of whether the Act and actions of the state board unconstitutionally infringe on Cooksey's rights to maintain certain aspects of his website." Therefore, because the question existed, the case was allowed to move forward. 

You are not wrong in your conclusion that this court ruling wasn't directly related to Cooksey's contention that the Act and the actions of the Board unconstitutionally limited his free speech via a ban on the content of the website; however, Judge Thacker's ruling was an acknowledgement that such a case had merit and was allowed to be further pursued. 

This case continued, though, and before a resolution was reached in court, the State Board adopted new guidelines liberalizing what is protected as free speech, and taking a narrower view of what speech requires occupational licensing in 2015; I'll concede that to link this case directly to a ruling on free speech protections was misleading but it was not intentionally done, (edit: and I do think the court ruling was a win for free speech in the context, in that it acknowledged questions about infringement were reasonably raised by the plaintiff); I was only basing it off of media summaries and I actually conflated it with a 2015 article (my mistake.) Regardless of what the court would have decided, I would still contend it was free speech but in any case the court did rule that it wasn't strictly black-and-white

Spoiler

I want to be a lawyer btw :vegas: not really this type though, criminal defense 

Spoiler

or whatever makes the most money :bon:

Spoiler

so corporate :fatcat:

 

 

 

P.S no I don't want anyone to die or have their life ruined :ohwell: but thank you for being able to carry on a discussion past that point without it devolving into name-calling and personal attacks, a rarity on GGD these days!

P.P.S took me all day to figure out what your avi was I thought it was a red and blue ghost:cryga:

 

Edited by JRCF29
Don't Call Me Gaga

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
uo111
3 hours ago, JRCF29 said:

At issue in this case was whether or not Steve Cooksey had standing to bring a censorship case against the Board.

The Court did not rule on the content of the website, but did overturn a lower court's prior dismissal of Cooksey's case on the grounds that the actions taken against him by the board would be "likely to deter a person... from the exercise of First Amendment rights." Further, the court found that Cooksey had reason to believe he could be prosecuted under the North Carolina Dietetics/Nutrition Practice Act, and therefore had standing to bring the preemptive case. 

Judge Thacker further found that the claims "present[ed] the question of whether the Act and actions of the state board unconstitutionally infringe on Cooksey's rights to maintain certain aspects of his website." Therefore, because the question existed, the case was allowed to move forward. 

You are not wrong in your conclusion that this court ruling wasn't directly related to Cooksey's contention that the Act and the actions of the Board unconstitutionally limited his free speech via a ban on the content of the website; however, Judge Thacker's ruling was an acknowledgement that such a case had merit and was allowed to be further pursued. 

This case continued, though, and before a resolution was reached in court, the State Board adopted new guidelines liberalizing what is protected as free speech, and taking a narrower view of what speech requires occupational licensing in 2015; I'll concede that to link this case directly to a ruling on free speech protections was misleading but it was not intentionally done, (edit: and I do think the court ruling was a win for free speech in the context, in that it acknowledged questions about infringement were reasonably raised by the plaintiff); I was only basing it off of media summaries and I actually conflated it with a 2015 article (my mistake.) Regardless of what the court would have decided, I would still contend it was free speech but in any case the court did rule that it wasn't strictly black-and-white

  Reveal hidden contents

I want to be a lawyer btw :vegas: not really this type though, criminal defense 

  Hide contents

or whatever makes the most money :bon:

  Hide contents

so corporate :fatcat:

 

 

 

P.S no I don't want anyone to die or have their life ruined :ohwell: but thank you for being able to carry on a discussion past that point without it devolving into name-calling and personal attacks, a rarity on GGD these days!

P.P.S took me all day to figure out what your avi was I thought it was a red and blue ghost:cryga:

 

Make that money girl! Good luck to you in becoming a lawyer. I was confused because I couldn’t find a real conclusion so this clears that up for me!

 

P.S. My avatar is Jakiro from Dota2

  • Thanks 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...