I have encountered this question being asked of me several times in the past in discussion with regulators. My reply remains the same each time to the regulator when being asked this; "have you consulted a financial adviser/advisor before investing". My reply is "no" and sometimes I expand upon why it is "no', and I do refer to scandals of the past involving so called Financial Advisers, that clearly substantiates my argument of why would I consult an FA when you read of all the deception surrounding this field in the past. If anything, the associated risk with any investment could be less, if a person is in full control of the investment themselves. There are good and bad FA,s, an investor doesn,t know which ones are good or bad, so for a regulator to ask if you have consulted an FA is irrelevant and absurd, especially in our case where DD has gone above and beyond the qualifications of a typical FA.

Perhaps the most staggering fact with our SLI investment, is the consultation of numerous geos, in comparison to the BCSC not even having a geo on this case. Perhaps a good question for investors of SLI to the regulators would be; "have you consulted the geologist of your compliance departments"? It is your choice of course, but I would not accept BS questions like this from the regulators while they are obviously looking for escape routes from any liability.

A little clip below I found relating to the post but written by someone else.

An industry pro made these comments to me on condition of his anonymity. "......conclusion was there is a basic deception causing Canadians to place their complete trust in the industry and in particular their Financial Advisor. That trust has enabled representatives more influenced by increased commission than doing what is best and right for their clients, to benefit.

A long time ago I first heard an OSC conversation about "O" and "E". (advisor/adviser) It took me a while to comprehend this was the one thing that enables so much wrongdoing. Financial Advisors are not a registered classification. They are registered as dealing representatives without fiduciary duty and no legal requirement to look after client's best interests. Sure they are supposed to sell only suitable products but suitable is arguable.

It's not unlike Affinity fraud or a Ponzi scheme, but on a grand scale. The first step is to gain trust. Act like someone who can be trusted ... like Earl Jones. Nothing else matters. Once you gain trust anything is possible. Trust me. If they will, it's a winning game.

The industry/regulators are able to gain the public trust because we keep hearing the industry is well regulated.