Briefly:

Previous Brieflies this week: | MON | TUE | WED | THU |

(January 3, 2008) AIM Trimark will add new asset classes and investment managers to its Dialogue Portfolios, effective January 16. The move is designed to improve diversification and boost risk-adjusted returns, the company says.

“What sets Dialogue Portfolios apart from competing managed solutions is their global investment focus, relatively low MERs and special underlying funds that investors typically can’t access elsewhere,” says John Ciampaglia, AIM Trimark’s vice-president of product development.

The company also announced that the equity portion of its Dialogue Income Portfolios would rise from 25% to 35% of the portfolio.

• • •

Criterion launches “buyback” fund

(January 3, 2008) Share buybacks have long been seen as a measure of corporate strength. Now there is a fund that will focus on those companies with the best track record of investing in themselves.

Criterion Investments has announced the launch of the Criterion U.S. Buyback Currency Hedged Fund, which will invest in a relatively focused group of 30 American companies.

“The U.S. is the largest market in the world and cannot be ignored; however, advisors across Canada tell us they are looking for defensive strategies to adopt for their clients’ U.S. equity exposure,” says Ian McPherson, president of Criterion. “This fund not only follows a value-style approach, but the disciplined, rules-based strategy also removes all unnecessary emotion from investing.”

As the fund’s name suggests, currency risk will be hedged, but an unhedged version is also available. The minimum investment is $500.

• • •

BCSC upholds suspension

(January 3, 2008) The British Columbia Securities Commission has upheld an IDA decision to suspend David Michael Michaels, a Victoria-based mutual fund sales rep, for two months.

The suspension follows a finding that Michaels sold off-book shares to 13 of his clients. He then withheld information regarding the full number of clients who bought shares from him between August 1999 and February 2004.

The IDA hearing panel decided that the infraction did not warrant a permanent suspension, but the IDA itself challenged the two-month suspension, calling it inadequate.

The BCSC sided with the hearing panel, saying, “In our opinion, [these cases] do not support the proposition that any deception must necessarily invoke a permanent ban from the industry.”

(01/03/08)