A Open Letter to all Financial Institutions and PlanersSuppose you and your husband were left a sizeable amount of money on the death of a close relative.

There was one condition. You must use the money to purchase a particular dream home that you and your husband had for years, always admired from a distance.

With the estate wind-up complete and your inheritance in hand, you purchased the dream house and sold your previous home all in one day.Shortly thereafter you proceeded to move in to your new home. On moving day though, a building inspector arrived to inform you that there were certain by-laws in place preventing you from ever living in your new home.

Your local municipality still wanted you to feel welcome in their neighbourhood though, so they offered you alternate accommodations across town. Upon inspection, you quickly realized these alternate accommodations were terribly sparse . almost pathetic when compared with your new home.

Given that you had no other home available, you and your husband begrudgingly moved in across town. Each day questions/thoughts arose in your mind as to why you were not allowed to live in your own new home.

Finally you decided to confront the building inspector. Here are the answers/rationale he gave you.1.)

Why can't we live in our dream home? ... because the municipality doesn't think you are capable of prudent home management. ... they think you might just let it fall into ruins ... they think you are incapable of providing general upkeep ... you might never cut the grass or shovel the snow ... you might never wash the windows or tend the gardens etc. .......... It is quite OK for you to have bought the house though!

2.) Why do we have to live across town in such pathetic conditions? ... because the municipality thinks that is more the quality of home suited to your abilities as a homeowner ... and the municipality is always looking out for the best interest of its citizens ............ It is quite OK that you pay the taxes on your new home though!

3.) ... but we own that new home! That is correct. You can go over there every day if you wish ... water the plants ... decorate . clean ... change the linens etc. etc. ... nothing like keeping your home in immaculate condition ... it certainly helps the re-sale value .you just can't stay there overnight ............. Once again, it is quite OK to own YOUR new home. You just can't live there!

4.) If it is OUR home, we want to sell it then because it has already appreciated in value. Correct again. It is your home but unfortunately we can't allow you to sell it. You might just go to the casino and waste all the proceeds. ............. Again, it is YOUR own home ... but we feel we must protect you from yourself!

5.) ... then we want to borrow against the equity in our home! Sorry ... we, can't allow that either. You see, we have designated your home as off limits to any creditors you might have . we call it protection ... again, protection from yourself ... Sorry ........... You do have another option though.

6.) What option might that be? When one of you passes away, the municipality will immediately allow the surviving spouse to live in the dream home ... we just can't allow both of you, while you are both living, to enjoy that privilege. ... Sorry ......... One final word .

7.) What might that word be? . If both of you pass away at the same time, your estate cannot claim that the house was your principal residence either, since you never really lived there. Therefore all proceeds from the sale of your home must be declared as income in the year of death and subject to estate taxation ............. Still ... be of good cheer ... after all, it was your dream home!

Mr. Financial Planner (CFP) ... in the above story (metaphor) .

(a) the inheritance represents the commuted value of a previous pension before it was transferred into a Locked-In pension( the dream home represents a Locked-In pension

© the alternate accommodations represent FSCO's 6% annual withdrawal limit on Locked-In accounts

(d) the building inspector represents financial planners

(e) the municipality represents the Financial Services Commission of Ontario

(f) the rules and regulations quoted by the building inspector represent FSCO's rules governing Locked-In pensions

On a personal note Mr. Financial Planner (CFP) ... I don't think in a million years you would ever submit to such a ridiculous scenario of home ownership. No sane person would! Instead you would immediately become the most vocal person on the face of the earth, if presented with such stupidity, as in the above story.

As outlandish as this story is . it is the reality facing all Ontarians that hold Locked-In pensions.

8.) One final question .... who are all these new neighbours that have moved in beside our dream home? They all ... are apparently living in their new homes! Why are they allowed to live in their new homes and we can't?Again, you are correct. Others are allowed privilege that you cannot have. Why? They are special people. Their names are Bradley, Conway, Eves, Hampton, Harris, Kormos, Laughren, McGuinty, Rae, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sorbara, Sterling, Wildman etc.

Each day your industry makes financial decisions that ultimately come under Mr.Sorbara's jurisdiction, as does the Pension Benefits Act.

At the same time, your industry witnesses daily, the plight of Locked-In pensioners.

Why is there not a sustained fight from within your industry to expose the discrimination behind Locked-In pensions?

Why are you not prepared to fight to the bitter end to quash this discrimination against Locked-In pensioners?

Are Locked-In pensioners really of such little value to the financial service industry that all you can muster is ... "I hear your frustration"?

After all, your industry collects MERs, commissions and administration fees from Locked-In accounts too.Or is that the answer in a nutshell?

Your industry makes money from Locked-In accounts in exactly the same manner as it does with Unlocked accounts .

so it is just easier to look the other way ... because the whole issue really does not affect any financial service company's bottom line ... its corporate balance sheet?

When government(s) pass legislation as abhorrent as Bill 27, such passage does not also, automatically mandate silence from the people. People must be prepared to speak out against such atrocity, wherever and whenever it might arise!

To do otherwise, is to stifle the only check and balance available against self-serving politicians.

There never was any means test administered confirming that just 61 special people in Ontario (special MPPs) were the only ones capable of managing their own pension accounts. ...

is it easier, Mr. Financial Planner (CFP), to just to look the other way and comply, without challenge, to any and all regulations from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, no matter how discriminatory they might be?

By Ken Elliott