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 (21,155)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (414)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (800)
  • Wink's Articles (353)
  • Wink's Inside Story (274)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • 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
  • It’s time for a reset on the fiduciary rule: Opinion

    January 25, 2017 by John Taft

    The fiduciary rule’s future is uncertain, as opponents and advocates of the regulation anticipate that President Trump may delay or overturn it. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) joined the fray by issuing a letter to more than 30 financial services firms, asking their leaders how they’ll respond to any changes to the rule that she has supported.

    In a letter to the senator, John Taft, retired CEO of RBC Wealth Management-U.S., suggests Warren consider a different approach.

    Dear Sen. Warren:

    Last week you wrote to leaders in the financial services industry asking them to stand with you to oppose steps the Trump Administration is expected to take to delay the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule.

    In your letter you expressed concern for “the investment advisers and financial institutions who have already spent time and money implementing this new rule”.

    Let’s be clear: While many leaders of the wealth management industry agree that the time has come for a fiduciary standard, few would pass up the opportunity to replace the Labor Department’s approach with a better one.

    You accurately point to the retirement savings crisis we face in America. You also note, correctly, that providers of investment solutions have been changing, and in some cases reducing, pricing in anticipation of the rule.

    Yet you fail to appreciate that the cost of manufacturing investment solutions — be they stocks, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs, annuities, managed accounts — is only a small piece of the overall puzzle. No matter how much you reduce those costs, they are dwarfed by the value financial advisers add for their clients when it comes to saving for retirement or other needs.

    Reducing costs with one hand while making it harder for individuals to get advice with the other ultimately does more harm than good. Which is exactly what the fiduciary rule was going to do.

    Here’s what you should be asking financial services leaders to support: A fresh start.

    Why don’t you suggest that President Trump use a delay in the effective date of the Labor Department’s rule to bring all the players in the fiduciary standard debate to the policy table — wealth managers, regulators, the Trump Administration? Maybe form a Bipartisan Commission on the Fiduciary Standard. Begin again with the widely-accepted premise that there should be a universal fiduciary standard of care for investment professionals who provide advice to individual investors.

    But this time, do it the right way.

    Empower the SEC to take the lead in writing the rule, instead of the Labor Department. The SEC actually knows and understands how financial markets work. The commission already has the authority of the Dodd-Frank Act to implement a fiduciary standard that applies to all client accounts — not just retirement accounts.

    Let the SEC work with the principle securities regulator, FINRA, so that the new fiduciary standard doesn’t conflict with existing regulations (which the Labor Department’s rule does).

    Write the new rule so that it preserves client access to the products and services they enjoy today and preserves their ability to choose what kind of adviser they want to work with.

    Write it so that individual savers can continue to choose how they pay for advice — either with fees, or commissions, or a combination of the two.

    And most importantly, write it so that the risks of providing retirement advice aren’t so great that wealth management firms are forced to de-market whole segments of the population that need help the most — small savers.

    Senator Warren, my colleagues in the financial services industry support a delay in the implementation of the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule. They support taking time to evaluate whether there isn’t a better way than the department’s flawed rule to accomplish what we all want — to simplify the regulatory environment, improve investor protection, restore investor trust and confidence, and most importantly, preserve choice and access to retirement solutions and advice for the American people.

    Respectfully,

    John Taft

    Originally Posted at Financial Planning on January 24, 2017 by John Taft.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency