It’s an exhausting job, but
someone has to do it. Investment Executive researchers Marshall Bellamy, Clare O’Hara and Dalva Potestio spoke to a total of 637 advisors across Canada to find out how they feel about their firms for the 2007 Brokerage Report Card. The findings are in this 20-page pull-out section.
In the past, only firms with at least 200 advisors and a national presence were eligible to participate. However, IE expanded its criteria this year to include three regional dealers, each of which brings a unique offering to its clients.
The survey’s basics remain the same, but some questions have been tweaked to be more specific. In the “back office” category, for instance, we asked advisors to rate not only the technology but the entire back-office platform, including dividends and interest postings, trade reconciliation, payroll and benefits. The “compliance” question was tweaked to allow advisors to discuss in more detail their relationship with their compliance department, and whether it helped or hindered their business.
A category for advisors to rate their firms’ “support for high net-worth clients” — reflecting a growing focus on attracting wealthy clients — was also added. And advisors were asked to rate their firm’s “transition support” if they had moved to their current firm from a competing brokerage. This question was intended to shed light on what the industry is doing to attract and retain the best advisors.
The rating system remained the same: advisors were asked to rate their satisfaction with various aspects of their firms on a scale of one through 10, with 10 being the best. Individual responses were grouped to determine the average score for each firm in all categories. No bonus points were allotted.
In instances in which “n/a” appears on a data table, the firm does not offer that particular service or its advisors declined to respond. Firms were grouped according to size and scope: regional firms, national independents, bank-owned dealers and boutiques.
The table on page C4 is intended to provide a starting point — not the bottom line — in determining how advisors feel about their firms and the industry as a whole.
Numbers don’t lie, but they can be subjective. Case in point: the scores for “overall rating,” which show how advisors feel overall about their firms on a scale of one through 10. Without exception, each firm received a more generous score than the combined average scores in each category.
This means advisors dole out a string of mediocre sixes and sevens throughout the survey, only to conclude that their firm is, in fact, a nine out of 10 “overall.” This anomaly suggests a number of things, including the possibility that advisors have high hopes for their firms in spite of present shortcomings. IE