push off cliff
IStock.com / Erhui1979

To securities regulators’ credit, they have tried to ensure that investors have a voice in regulatory policymaking. But as the number of investor groups proliferates, such voices are not as loud as they could be. The perspectives are diluted.

If anything, retail investors who power the investment industry with retirement and education savings appear to have little power when it comes to crafting the policy that dictates a trade.

The challenges always seemed to attract a handful of brave souls — determined retirees with a grudge against big investment dealers, and attention-seeking shareholder advocates who seize the opportunity to air grievances at annual general meetings.

But retail investors inevitably lack the broader financial services sector’s knowledge and resources. And representing the interests of a heterogeneous group with diverse priorities can be notoriously difficult.

The founding of groups such as FAIR Canada and the Ontario Securities Commission’s original Investor Advisory Panel helped focus some of this chaotic energy. These groups did some great work channeling investor perspectives on a wide array of issues, and helped provide a much needed counterweight to the industry’s heavyweight lobbying.

That early success inspired the creation of investor advisory panels at both the Canadian Securities Administrators and the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization.

Yet, while the sentiment behind the founding of these groups may have been noble, their output has been disappointing.

While FAIR Canada continues to tackle a wide array of investor issues — from title protection, to total cost reporting, to the financial services sector’s use of artificial intelligence — the regulators’ advisory groups produced only six comment letters this year. Half those letters focused on the same issue: proposed reforms to dispute resolution.

Numerous policy proposals were left unaddressed, as were additional advocacy issues that could benefit from original thinking.

The fiery sense of justice that motivated earlier advocates shouldn’t be replaced by bureaucrats. Not if that means the results are mere renderings of proactive, passionate investor advocacy.

This article appears in the October issue of Investment Executive. Subscribe to the print edition, read the digital edition or read the articles online.