We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,989)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (3)
  • Moore on the Market (479)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (825)
  • Wink's Articles (373)
  • Wink's Inside Story (281)
  • Wink's Press Releases (127)
  • Blog Archives

  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • ‘Top-Down’ And ‘Bottom-Up’ Views Of Fiduciary Proposal

    May 11, 2015 by Cyril Tuohy, cyril.tuohy@innfeedback.com

    New fiduciary standards proposed by the Department of Labor (DOL) are in store for advisors in the 401(k) business. The smaller the advisory, the more likely it will be faced with higher record-keeping costs and more onerous compliance responsibilities.

    The question is who’s likely to suffer the most, and what effect will the DOL proposal have on the marketplace?
    New rules issued by the DOL last month would require blanket fiduciary duties of advisors operating in the retirement plan market.
    Many advisors already operate to a fiduciary standard. The DOL has inserted exemption clauses to the proposed rule, so it’s not clear exactly who among the thousands of advisors in this trillion-dollar market would be affected.

    The proposal was published in the Federal Register April 20 and the industry has 75 days to comment.

    For now, the view from the “top down” is decidedly different from the view from the “bottom up.”

    From a “top-down” perspective of the large retirement plan providers — the Principals, Prudentials and MetLifes of the world — fiduciary rules will give an advantage to the “recognized leaders” in the 401(k) and individual retirement account (IRA) rollover space.

    Larry Zimpleman, chairman and CEO of Principal Financial Group, told analysts last month that more complexity will “continue the 30-year trend of market share shifting from second- and third-tier players” to industry leaders, he said.

    Zimpleman was careful not to name these “second- and third-tier players,” but it’s fair to assume that they are smaller companies operating in the defined contribution market. At the end of last year, that market held $7.2 trillion in IRA assets and another $5.3 trillion in 401(k) assets.
    Stephen P. Pelletier, executive vice president and chief operating officers, U.S. Businesses, for Prudential, said this week that the DOL proposal could result in higher asset retention and defined contribution plans, which would have “a positive offset” for Prudential’s retirement business.

    Small advisors, however, see the fiduciary rule through a very different lens.

    Chris Chen, a Boston-based financial planner, said the DOL fiduciary proposal is an opportunity for smaller plan providers to “provide value and a level of service that is difficult for large, tradition-bound insurance companies to provide.”

    He also said in an email response to a query that the proposal provides an opportunity for life insurers to exit the segment entirely.

    As the private sector and the government employers exit the defined benefit space in favor of the defined contribution model, the industry can count on the expansion of assets held in 401(k)s and 403(b)s, so asset growth isn’t the issue.

    How the rule will affect revenue growth, however, is a different story.

    Ken Perine, an advisor with Meritage Wealth Advisory in Livermore, Calif., wrote in an email that the fiduciary proposal will mean more contraction to the revenue as retirement plan providers are forced to jettison under performing funds, high fees and “self-serving revenue sharing agreements.”

    “They’ll have to decide if they want to change their business model and get competitive or exit the business,” he wrote.

    “The devil is in the details and we don’t know the final regulations yet,” wrote certified financial planner John F. McAvoy, principal with Waterstone Retirement Services in Canton, Mass. “My opinion (hope) is that there will be an adjustment period but, ultimately, no 401(k) plan advisor will be unable to claim they are not a fiduciary.”

    There seems little doubt that a fiduciary standard will entail higher costs and that means lower profit margins.

    As a rule, higher costs affect smaller players — plan providers and advisors — to a greater extent than larger organizations because expenses are spread over a smaller base. So, if adopted, the rule will affect smaller broker/dealers, registered investment advisors or the record-keepers with agents acting on their behalf.

    “If you are a small organization, there are higher compliance costs and more rules around reporting and ensuring participants get appropriate advice,” said Jeffrey H. Snyder, vice president and senior consultant with Cammack Retirement Group in New York, in a telephone interview with InsuranceNewsNet.

    Snyder also said the DOL proposal would push more advisors and plans to ditch the commission-based and revenue-sharing models in favor of a flat-fee arrangement. The fee-based revenue model tends to favor larger organizations.

    A snapshot of where advisors stand on the matter was captured last week in a poll of 875 financial advisors in a webinar hosted by Pioneer Investments.

    When asked about the impact of the new rules on their business, 38 percent of advisors said it would hurt their business and have a negative impact on profitability.

    But the poll also found that 27 percent indicated the DOL rule would help them by leveling the playing field on retirement advice. Another 21 percent said the rule would have no effect and 14 percent were not sure of the rule’s impact.

    “It’s interesting to see that while most advisors believe that this will hurt their business, quite a few also think that it will help level the playing field,” said Fred Reish, an employee retirement income attorney at Drinker Biddle & Reath, who served as a panelist on the webinar.

    Blaine Aikin, CEO of fi360, an organization which offers support and guidance for investment fiduciaries, said that the effect of the proposed rule had been a topic of debate among advisors for many months leading up to its April release.

    “The results of this poll demonstrate that, as advisors see and hear more, these concerns linger in the minds of many,” said Aikin, who also served on the webinar. “Here again, though, almost as many foresee either positive or neutral outcomes.”

    Originally Posted at InsuranceNewsNet on May 11, 2015 by Cyril Tuohy, cyril.tuohy@innfeedback.com.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency