This advisor has seen attitudes toward sales and planning change in her 48 years in the industry
Audrey Chiang, an advisor and president with Audrey Chiang Insurance Services Inc. at Sun Life Financial Investment Services (Canada) Inc. in Toronto, talks about growing up in Hong Kong before moving to Canada to study, losing money in the dot-com meltdown, and changes she's seen in her 48 years as an advisor:
Describe your upbringing.
I was born in the 1950s in Hong Kong, the youngest of seven children. My father was a businessman; he passed away many years ago. My mother, who is still alive – she just turned 104 – was a housewife.
My parents were very careful in running the household expenses. My mother gave us a new wardrobe once a year, only during the Chinese New Year. They taught us not to spend money unnecessarily and encouraged us to study hard and get a good education if we wanted to become successful one day.
Two of my older siblings came to Canada for university. I was lucky that my parents also allowed me to study abroad. I came to Canada when I was a teenager. I finished my high school education in Saskatchewan and studied economics at McMaster University in Hamilton.
Describe your first money lesson.
When I moved to Canada, my parents gave me $3,000 as spending money, which was a lot in the early 1970s. (They covered my school and housing costs.) It was the first time I had been given such a large amount of money. I spent very little of it. I worked during the summer as a chambermaid at a hotel, earning $2.75 an hour. I saved as much of that money as I could.
Once I went to university, I applied for student loans and worked part-time to support my living expenses. I was very careful not to spend money unnecessarily, which is something I continue to do today. I save money first before I spend. I only buy what I can afford.
What did you want to be when you grew up, and how did you get into financial services?
Growing up, I wanted to become a banker. I was inspired by my father, who was a successful businessman. My parents were also into buying stocks and real estate in Hong Kong. After getting my university degree, I applied for jobs in the banking and insurance sectors. I picked the insurance business because the recruiter told me that I could be my own boss and earn a higher income helping clients with their health and wealth protection needs.
What decision around money and investing made the greatest impact on your life?
I am always looking for growth opportunities. My husband and I have moved our family four times in the past 40 years, switching from smaller to larger homes and taking advantage of no tax on the sale of principal residences. We also invest in stocks and mutual funds. It's also something we teach our three children to do.
What is the biggest money mistake you've made, and what did you learn from it?
My husband and I didn't have experience in the stock market and lost money in the dot-com bubble in 2001. After that, we learned not to invest heavily in a single sector. Diversification is the most effective strategy for investing. Also, be disciplined. Don't chase high returns. Don't be greedy.
What do you worry about when it comes to money, both personally and in the industry?
I worry about losing my own money and that of my clients. I will evaluate the risk before investing and always put my clients' needs at the centre, including their goals, needs, lifestyle considerations and potential risks.
How long have you been an advisor, and what have been some of the major changes you've seen in your career to date?
I just celebrated my 48th anniversary of being an advisor. When I started in my 20s, it was more about selling products than financial planning. Today, people have more assets and wealth, and therefore require more comprehensive planning strategies.
Technology has also changed a lot. There's a lot of great software that helps us with planning strategies. There's also AI software that helps advisors streamline our work, which means we can spend more time helping clients directly.
What advice do you have for someone who wants to enter your business?
It's a lucrative business being an insurance and investment advisor. You have to enjoy what you're doing in the business. You have to prepare to work long hours. You need to continue your education to give valuable advice to the clients. It's not about making a sale. You need to be honest and provide continuous service to the clients.
This interview has been edited and condensed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
WELL Health Announces Voting Results for Election of Directors
Article content VANCOUVER, British Columbia — WELL Health Technologies Corp. (TSX: WELL) (OTCQX: WHTCF) (the ' Company ' or ' WELL '), a digital healthcare company focused on positively impacting health outcomes by leveraging technology to empower healthcare practitioners and their patients globally, is pleased to announce that at its annual general meeting held June 30, 2025 (the ' Meeting '), all of the nominees for election as directors of the Company referred to in its notice of meeting and information circular dated May 28, 2025 for the Meeting were elected. Article content A total of 67,105,724 common shares representing 26.52% of the outstanding common shares of the Company were voted by proxy at the Meeting. Voting results for the election of directors at the Meeting were as follows: Article content Article content Article content The results of other matters considered at the Meeting are reported in the Report of Voting Results as filed on SEDAR+ ( filed on July 4, 2025. Article content WELL HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES CORP. Article content Per: 'Hamed Shahbazi' Article content Hamed Shahbazi Article content Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and Director Article content WELL's mission is to tech-enable healthcare providers. We do this by developing the best technologies, services, and support available, which ensures healthcare providers are empowered to positively impact patient outcomes. WELL's comprehensive healthcare and digital platform includes extensive front and back-office management software applications that help physicians run and secure their practices. WELL's solutions enable more than 42,000 healthcare providers between the US and Canada and power the largest owned and operated healthcare ecosystem in Canada with more than 210 clinics supporting primary care, specialized care, and diagnostic services. In the United States WELL's solutions are focused on specialized markets such as the gastrointestinal market, women's health, primary care, and mental health. WELL is publicly traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol 'WELL' and on the OTC Exchange under the symbol 'WHTCF'. To learn more about the Company, please visit: Article content Article content Article content Article content Contacts Article content Article content Article content Article content
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
Suddenly, MPs are behaving like grown-ups
Bill C-5 is one of the most controversial laws Parliament has adopted in a decade. Its passage in the House of Commons was also notable for bringing about one of the most welcome moments seen in Parliament over the same period. But we'll get to that. Bill C-5, or at least Part 2 of it – the Building Canada Act – gives the government the unilateral power to override or suspend federal laws that would otherwise delay the rapid implementation of infrastructure and energy projects deemed by cabinet to be in the national interest. (Part 1 of Bill C-5 is an entirely non-controversial act to reduce federal interprovincial trade barriers.) It follows through on Prime Minister Mark Carney's election promise to counter the U.S. trade war on Canada by (sort of) releasing the economy from its regulatory chains. As we've already said, letting cabinet decide which projects are in the national interest is problematic. Canada's economy needs Ottawa to get out of its way, not perch itself on its shoulder and pick winners and losers, and then set aside regulations for the lucky few. Better to get rid of the regulations altogether and let the market decide. That critique aside, lost in the drama of Bill C-5 was an important and hopeful moment only mentioned in passing in news reports. It came on June 20, when the House of Commons adopted the bill and Mr. Carney crossed the floor to shake hands with Conservative Parliamentary Leader Andrew Scheer and Deputy Leader Melissa Lantsman. After 10 years of unrelenting partisanship, acrimony and division, here were leaders of the two parties that dominate Parliament cordially acknowledging the swift passage of legislation deemed urgent. (The bill went on to the Senate where it was adopted without amendment; it became law on June 26.) This is the Parliament that Canadians want to see, a place where MPs respect each other rather than erode the institution by turning into a content studio for creating snarky partisan social media posts and decontextualized attack ads. In Ontario's north and south, Indigenous groups protest new laws designed to fast-track infrastructure Opinion: Carney promised internal free trade by Canada Day. Is that enough? A Parliament where parties make the compromises needed to achieve consensus on important legislation, and which is not merely an arena where political games are won or lost. Bill C-5 was an example of Parliament's better angels at work, from the day it was tabled on June 6 to the day it was acknowledged with a handshake. Yes, the Carney Liberals tightly controlled debate on the legislation in order to rush its passage through the House before the summer break on June 20. But debate still did occur, and the Liberals accepted a number of key amendments that will make the government act more transparently. For instance, the government will have to inform the public how and why a project was deemed in the national interest, and explain the normal regulatory process that would have been followed had that not been the case. As well, the government agreed to remove the Indian Act from the schedule of federal laws that it can override. These and other improvements to the law demonstrate that, when MPs and their party bosses set aside rank partisanship, they can get things done. This new willingness to play nice resurfaced last week, when Mr. Carney called a by-election in the Alberta riding of Battle River-Crowfoot in order to allow Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader who lost his seat in the April 28 general election, to run for office and get back into the House. Mr. Carney called the by-election quickly, instead of playing games and leaving the Conservatives dangling. We admit that there are caveats to the example of Bill C-5. Its goal aligned with the political agendas of both the Liberals and the Conservatives, making cooperation mutually beneficial. And a single handshake doesn't herald a lasting new era of adult cooperation in the House of Commons. But it has been so bad for so long in Ottawa that any hopeful signs of maturity are enticing. Canadians want and need to see more cooperation and mutual respect between parties, and a laying down of rhetorical arms, in the name of the country's interests. Forceful debate and partisanship are always welcome in a parliamentary democracy, but a bitter fracturing along political lines that makes enemies of opposing parties and erases civility is not. Just look south for proof of that.
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
FIRST READING: EU exempting heavy industry from carbon tax as Canada doubles down
Article content The proposed EU exemption for heavy industry follows closely on another major EU concession on carbon pricing passed just last month. Article content Starting next year, the EU is set to implement a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBMA) that would place tariffs on imports coming from non-carbon priced jurisdictions. The idea being 'to encourage greater climate ambition in non-EU countries.' Article content But in June, the EU announced that 90 per cent of its importers would be exempt from the CBAM. Any firm importing less than 50 tonnes per year of foreign product wouldn't have to worry. Article content The EU exemptions would seem to undermine one of the Liberal government's signature defences of carbon pricing as being necessary to maintain competitiveness with foreign markets. Article content Just last summer, Canada's ambassador to France, Stéphane Dion, delivered an entire speech entitled 'carbon pricing as an asset for Canadian exports to Europe.' Article content 'Carbon pricing is an export tool, and abolishing it in Canada would not only be an ecological mistake, but also contrary to the economic interests of Canadians,' said Dion. Article content In June, Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux told the House of Commons that the industrial carbon tax had to be maintained to preserve Canadian access to the 'global market.' Article content 'The new prime minister and the new government have made a decision to get rid of the consumer carbon tax, but we still understand the importance of having the industrial carbon pricing system,' said Lamoureux. 'Let us be very clear on that, because we understand the global market and the critical role that has to play in it.' Article content IN OTHER NEWS Article content The Liberal government is sticking with its plan not to table a budget until at least the fall, so the eggheads at the C.D. Howe Institute took the liberty of doing it for them. They tallied up the government's various new spending promises, estimated what tax revenue is going to look like for the foreseeable future, and concluded that Ottawa is on track to rack up $300 billion in new debt over the next four years, an average of about $75 billion per year (or, about $5 in new debt per Canadian, per day). And that's under the most optimistic scenario. More likely is that it hits $350 billion. Article content This is way higher than any of the non-COVID spending charted under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Recall that it was only a few months ago that Trudeau was pressured into resigning in part due to shock that his government had allowed the deficit to swell to $62 billion. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, Canada is on a 'troubling path.' 'Adding $300 billion in federal debt while doing nothing to raise investment and productivity will make Canada more vulnerable, not less,' read the analysis. Article content Article content
