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 (16,957)
  • Industry Conferences (3)
  • Industry Job Openings (3)
  • Negative Media (139)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (628)
  • Sheryl's Blogs (179)
  • Wink's Articles (245)
  • Wink's Blogs (225)
  • Wink's Press Releases (94)
  • Blog Archives

  • 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
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • Fiduciary rule should be decided by Congress: Opinion

    December 26, 2017 by Mark Elzweig

    After lobbying hard for the fiduciary rule, consumer advocates clearly do not want to be blamed for the adverse consequences that are now becoming crystal clear.

    Maybe commissions aren’t so evil after all?

    All along, industry participants predicted that the rule would accelerate the disenfranchisement of smaller investors and restrict investor choice, and now that’s exactly what’s happening.

    Advocacy groups like the Consumer Federation of America now gripe that some advisors are inappropriately shifting customers into more expensive fee-based accounts as opposed to cheaper commission-based accounts. And yet the fiduciary rule (for which they advocated) makes doing commission business in retirement accounts a risky proposition both for firms and advisors. So now that the ill effects of the rule are apparent, they profess to be advocates of cheaper commission-based business.

    This begs the question: Why should groups who often have limited business experience have such an outsized influence on the regulatory process?

    This is the sort of thing that almost always happens when you hand the job of keeping consumers safe to regulators or nonprofits who have no skin in the game. They are full of aspirations but often lack real-world experience. They are also not accountable to voters.

    Fortunately, there’s been some good news on the fiduciary front for both advisors and investors over the last couple months. At the end of September, Rep. Ann Wagner, a Republican representing Missouri, introduced legislation that would repeal the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule and would replace it with a common-sense best-interest standard for broker-dealers. It’s a good thing when our elected representatives in Congress weigh in on this issue rather than ceding the field to unelected, unaccountable regulators.

    This common-sense bill would require advisors to act in the best interest of their clients and to execute a due diligence process that reflects that mandate. Advisors would also be charged with disclosing any conflicts of interest.

    In my view, the big-picture rules that govern advisor behavior should be formulated by Congress, while regulators who are appointed should be charged merely with implementing policies that reflect the expressed will of Congress. Regulators should not have free rein to unilaterally impose their will on the marketplace. It diminishes our democracy and harms advisors and investors alike when regulators rule by arbitrary fiat.

    The previous crew at the Labor Department really made a mess of things. Their edicts have caused advisors to flee from handling smaller accounts and now threaten to shrink investor choice in retirement accounts. The paperwork and documentation required by their fiduciary standard make smaller accounts toxic for advisors who are protecting themselves by mostly focusing on larger relationships.

    A July survey by the Insured Retirement Institute, an industry trade group, reported an upsurge in orphaned accounts since the fiduciary rule was introduced. They claim that 155,000 of their members accounts have been orphaned, with plenty more to come. A study by a mutual-fund industry trade association concurs. The Investment Company Institute reports an uptick in advisors who are rejecting smaller accounts and referring them back to mutual-fund companies.

    President Obama’s Labor Department empowered class-action attorneys to act as the final arbiters of which investments are appropriate for retirement accounts. In essence, permissible offerings under that standard were defined as those that did not enable class-action attorneys to ring the cash register by winning lawsuits. To counter this menace to their reputation and bottom line, brokerage firms shrunk their retirement account offerings to short lists of investments permitted under the old rule’s best interest contract exemption.

    Commission business was especially suspect under the old rule. Some firms, such as Commonwealth Financial Network and Merrill Lynch, responded by opting to restrict transactional business in retirement accounts entirely or to narrow the circumstances in which it was permitted.

    The rules that govern how our financial system works should be hashed out in public forums by our elected representatives. Their decisions may be far from perfect, but voters at least can weigh in on their actions. This makes the regulations that come from that process more legitimate and far more likely to serve the needs of advisors and the investing public.

    Originally Posted at Financial Planning on December 20, 2017 by Mark Elzweig.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency