"I think scale is what makes this thing work, where we can continue to build out the services to support a wide range of Canadian investors"

Carl Mustos, a senior executive at IA Financial Group (Industrial Alliance) is explaining the rationale behind the purchase of 800 HollisWealth advisors from Scotiabank. With the advisors comes $34 billion in assets held in 400,000 client accounts. Interestingly, HollisWealth is the rebranded version of Dundee Securities, which Scotia acquired in 2011.

I don't have any insight as to why these clients are being sold again five years later. Generally, Scotiabank has been one of the more aggressive banks in building 'scale' in the wealth management area, so there must be structural or cultural reasons.

I have no quarrel with IA building their wealth management business (the big 5 banks need competition), but it seems that in deal after deal, the big institutions treat the clients like chattel. They don't even couch their words when proudly announcing their deals.

It's all about us ... we're bigger now ... creating shareholder value ... scale, scale, scale ... profitability, profitability, profitability … it's all about size and profitability.

But shouldn't it be about the clients' service experience and their individual returns? Shouldn't they have a say as to whether this is good or not?

As we've said before, clients of acquired firms, HollisWealth in this case, do have a say. If you've been sold, you should ask for an explanation of how the deal will affect you? What will change? Will there be more paperwork to do? Will fees be lower and reporting better? How is your advisor being compensated in the deal?

I take issue with the constant theme from the mega-firms that scale is key. Scale is about profitability and empire building, not about client returns and service. Unlike branch banking, investment management is an anti-scale business.