Investment executive’s research team had a busy month putting together the results of the 2006 Planners’ Report Card. Armed with lists of hundreds of advisors from 11 national dealerships, researchers Nicole Grondin, Cynthia Innes, Jeromy Lloyd, Emma Ong and Dalva Potestio surveyed a total of 329 advisors — almost 30 from each firm.
Each of the firms surveyed in the Report Card has a national presence and at least 200 licensed advisors with an active book of business. Although most of the advisors we spoke with were registered with the Mutual Fund Dealers Association, some were also licensed for securities and operating on the Investment Dealers Association of Canada platform. But regardless of which model advisors work on, all of them had to have been employed by their respective firms for a minimum of one year to qualify for participation.
During the 15-minute telephone survey, advisors were asked to rate both the performance and the importance of 32 categories. Many of the categories remained the same as in last year’s survey, with a few minor tweaks. For instance, we eliminated the “chargebacks” category this year in lieu of a more inclusive “total compensation” category, in which advisors were asked to rate not only their payout but any rewards and recognition programs, as well as the fees they pay out of pocket.
Individual responses were grouped to determine the average score for each firm in all categories. It’s important to note that while we did ask advisors to rate the importance of each category, the scores for importance have no bearing on the overall standing of the firms in the Report Card. All scores are based on the advisors’ evaluation of their firm’s performance — not importance.
In the instances when “n/a” appears under a category, it means the firm does not offer that particular service and there is no score for that category.
The main chart on page C4 looks a little different this year. In an effort to compare apples with apples, we’ve placed the firms into one of three categories: full-service (those that offer both an MFDA platform and an IDA platform); MFDA-only; and “other,” a stand-alone firm that doesn’t offer any of the support services provided by those in the other two categories. Given this new format, we didn’t arrange firms according to their ranking (1st place, 2nd place, etc.) in each category, as the “other” category has only one firm.
Finally, a quick note on the “overall rating” category near the bottom of the main chart. This score is a reflection of how advisors feel about their firm overall on a scale of zero to 10. Interestingly, overall ratings outscored average performance scores at every firm. This suggests that perhaps advisors have a higher opinion of their firm when they consider it as a whole rather than as a sum of its parts. IE