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 (21,225)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (420)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (803)
  • Wink's Articles (354)
  • Wink's Inside Story (275)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • 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
  • List ‘Rubbish’: Advisors, firms trade barbs over SEC’s best interest rule

    August 14, 2018 by Tobias Salinger, Andrew Welsch, Kerri Anne Renzulli, Sean Allocca, Jessica Mathews

    Industry insiders and the investing public are telling the SEC just what they think of the regulator’s proposed Regulation Best Interest.

    It’s “rubbish,” an advisor says.

    And that is one of the less-heated responses. 

    Clashes over the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule have carried over into the debate on the SEC’s proposal, also known as Reg BI, which the commission put forward earlier this year. 

    Several industry trade groups and firms threw their support behind the SEC’s proposed regulation, but indicated areas where the commission should rethink its approach. Restricting titles, they said, would do little to reduce client confusion about the intricacies of the industry. LPL Financial suggested that such a proposal would “inevitably spawn a proliferation of new titles that would contribute equally to investor confusion.”

    Fiduciary advocates criticized the SEC proposal as ineffective policy at best, knocking it for its reliance on disclosure to protect investors. 

    Clients don’t read complicated prospectuses, advisor Ethan Baird noted. What makes the SEC think complicated disclosure documents are the answer?

    More than 3,800 investors, advisors, firms, advocacy groups and others filed comments to the commission, according to data posted on the SEC’s website. With the comment period closed, the SEC will review the feedback and consider whether to make changes, if any, to the proposal before putting it to a vote before its commissioners.

    Click HERE to read the original story via FinancialPlanning or scroll down to see a sampling of the feedback the regulator received.

    ‘Rubbish’

    “By passing this proposed regulation, brokers will be able to act and look like fiduciaries and at the same time still be able to sling products for commissions. How is this in the best interest of a client? Investors do not read the complicated prospectuses and ppms provided to them by brokers selling products. Who in their right mind believes that by simply requiring brokers to give more disclosure (which will be complicated and not understood by most investors) they can still sell commission products and the sale can somehow be in the client’s best interest? Rubbish. Pass this proposed regulation and you only harm the investing public.”

    Ethan S. Braid 
    President of HighPass Asset Management
    Denver

    Creating new problems?

    “Although we appreciate the commission’s general concerns regarding customer confusion as it relates to the role and level of services provided, we believe that restricting the use of ‘advisor’ or ‘adviser’ while allowing similar descriptors, such as ‘financial consultant’ or ‘wealth manager,’ would be unlikely to advance investor protection in the way the commission intends. Prohibiting specific titles would inevitably spawn a proliferation of new titles that would contribute equally to investor confusion.”

    Michelle Oroschakoff, 
    Chief Legal Officer, LPL Financial
    San Diego

    Preserve client choice

    “It is important for the commission’s final rules to enhance investor protection while not diminishing the autonomy and choice for retail investors who maintain their accounts at dual registrant firms like Schwab or who hire independent RIAs to help them invest and manage their accounts.”

    Christopher Gilkerson, general counsel, and; 
    Tara Tune, corporate counsel 
    Charles Schwab

    Save suitability

    “A decision to replace the term ‘suitable’ in the text of traditional suitability rules with the phrase ‘best interest’ will disrupt the market, decrease competition, increase the price of services out of the reach of thousands of middle-class Americans, and significantly reduce consumer options for selecting valuable professional services.”

    Douglas Ommen
    Iowa Insurance Commissioner

    ‘Completely counterintuitive’

    “It will make for a puzzling and completely counterintuitive regulatory framework if (as under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940) an investment advisor who has a fiduciary relationship with the client is permitted to mitigate its conflicts by means of disclosure and client consent whereas a broker-dealer may not be allowed to do so. Requiring broker-dealers to mitigate or eliminate certain conflicts would subject broker-dealers to a higher standard than investment advisors who are permitted to handle conflicts through disclosure. Such a mismatch between the standards for broker-dealers and investment advisers is neither appropriate nor necessary.”

    Jason Chandler, co-head of investment platforms and solutions of UBS Global Wealth Management 
    Michael Crowl, general counsel of UBS Group Americas

    ‘Grievous harm’

    “The proposals address the most fundamental of investor protection issues: the duties that providers of investment advice owe their customers and clients. As a regulator, I have seen the grievous harm suffered by Main Street investors who mistakenly trusted and relied on conflicted investment advice. The commission now has the opportunity of a generation to protect them. Unfortunately, the proposals are inadequate to provide this protection.”

    William Galvin
    Secretary of the commonwealth of Massachusetts

    Common problem

    “For financial professionals registered with both of these entities as a registered representative and an investment advisor representative, it is not clear how the title restrictions would apply. This scenario is not unique to Ladenburg and its subsidiaries; rather, this is a common scenario in the independent financial services industry.”

    Joseph Giovanniello
    Senior vice president for corporate and regulatory affairs, Ladenburg Thalmann

    ‘Misleading titles’

    “We support the SEC’s goal of ensuring that retail investors understand the kind of financial professional they are doing business with by restricting the use of potentially misleading titles. Most of FSI’s member firms and financial professionals are dual registrants or dual-hatted professionals (i.e. those who are both registered representatives of a broker-dealer and investment advisor representatives). Our members hold themselves to a high standard as stewards of their clients trust and do not want unscrupulous actors to be able to present themselves as offering the same level of service without proper registration.”

    David Bellaire
    General counsel, FSI

    ‘Ineffective policy’

    “I believe the commission’s approach of trying to adjust the standard that applies to advice delivered by broker-dealers, through the implementation of Regulation Best Interest, is not only an ineffective policy approach that may amplify consumer confusion by using overlapping terminology to describe substantively different standards of care, but inappropriately broadens Congress’ narrow broker-dealer exemption for ‘solely incidental’ advice.”

    Michael Kitces 
    Co-founder of XY Planning Network and partner of Pinnacle Advisory Group

    Simple distinction

    “Regulate the titles and marketing associated with financial planning and investment advice and limit the advisory based titles to fiduciary advisors only. Consumers are OK with commission transactions; car buying, house buying, etc. However, they know that those professionals are commissioned and in a sales role. We can keep the same simple distinction for true planning and advice vs. sales in our industry.”

    Jacob D. Kuebler
    Owner of Bluestem Financial Advisors
    Champaign, Illinois

    ‘Not necessary’

    “Ultimately, the proposed titling restrictions are not necessary — taking into consideration the other provisions of the proposal — to assure consumers understand who they are hiring, for what services, at what cost and under what legal standard of conduct. The disclosure items in the proposal go much further toward addressing consumer confusion and educating them about their rights, relationships, costs, etc., than the titling restrictions, which are not tied to consumers’ understanding of these specific issues.”

    Keith Gillies
    President, NAIFA

    ‘Unreasonable burden’

    “The complex, overlapping and costly structure of regulations that the DoL, the SEC, and the several states are creating imposes an unreasonable burden on the financial industry. The burden falls especially heavily on the small and independent businesses in that industry, who have few resources to devote to identifying, deciphering and complying with such regulations.”

    David Addington
    General Counsel, National Federation of Independent Business

    ‘The illusion of protection’

    “Permitting a brokerage firm and its representatives to state that they act in the ‘best interests’ of their customers, when in fact their duties flow to the product manufacturer or issuer of the security (or to their own interests, when selling proprietary products or otherwise acting as a dealer), only permits falsehood. The commission’s proposal, by stating that a broker-dealer acts in the ‘best interests’ of the customer, while utilizing a safe harbor and permitting the use of disclaimers by firms, in essence creates only the illusion of protection — i.e., the commission creates a fallacy.”

    Ron Rhoades
    Director of the personal financial planning program at Western Kentucky University’s Gordon Ford College of Business
    Bowling Green, Kentucky

    Prohibition

    “Financial Engines supports prohibition on use of the terms ‘adviser’ and ‘advisor’ by broker-dealers to describe themselves when communicating with retail customers; however, Financial Engines believes that other terms, such as ‘manager’ or ‘planner’ are similarly problematic, and encourage the commission to also prohibit use of such terms.”

    Christopher Jones, 
    Chief investment officer of Financial Engines
    Palo Alto, California

    ‘Limited utility’

    “The commission should carefully consider the limited utility of disclosure as a primary means of protecting retail investors and ensuring their ‘best interests’ as detailed in the proposal. As evidenced by a growing body of research, because of numerous behavioral biases and cognitive tendencies, disclosure has frequently not been as informative or useful in protecting retail investors.”

    Tom C.W. Lin
    Professor at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law
    Philadelphia

    One size doesn’t fit all

    “I would like to go on record to strongly encourage the SEC to not allow regulations that limit my ability to service my clients either in the product or payment area. One shoe does not fit everyone’s foot. Diversity in product, service and compensation are good for the industry and ultimately for the client when used appropriately.”

    Richard D. Garton
    Co-founder of Garton Pate Financial Advisors
    Bluffton, Indiana

    ‘I beg of you’

    “I work with fee-only advisors across the country. I see the work they do and hear the horror stories they have of clients formerly served by non-fiduciary financial advisors. I beg of you to work to make a clear delineation between the commissioned side of the business and a true fee-only fiduciary.”

    Arlene Moss 
    Coaching Program Manager at XY Planning Network
    Colorado Springs, Colorado

    A fiduciary must

    “Based upon the real-world business experience of the more than 81,000 CFP professionals who are stakeholders and members of the coalition organizations, the coalition believes that any final rule based on this proposal must include robust and explicit fiduciary protections for retail investors, regardless of the business model under which that advice is provided. Without these critical safeguards, Reg BI not only will fail to increase protections for retail investors, but also may unintentionally mislead the public by implying that compliance with the final rule will cause financial firms and professionals to recommend only those investments that are truly in a retail investor’s ‘best interest.'”

    Financial Planning Coalition:
    Kevin Keller, CEO of CFP Board
    Lauren Schadle, CEO of FPA 
    Geoffrey Brown, CEO of NAPFA

    Cut down the ‘legalese’

    “I also encourage the SEC to develop a CRS template that my firm can use to help me create a useful and informative CRS that provides clients accurate and helpful information. To the extent the SEC creates a template form for firms to use, this will cut back on potential investor confusion and will keep firms and their legal counsels from adding too much legalese to the document, which would interfere with my ability to use the form to have a meaningful conversation with my client.”

    Travis A. Morrow
    President of 3 Rivers Financial Group
    Kennewick, Washington

    A simpler proposal?

    “I request that you consider eliminating the proposed legislation and simply require all broker-dealers to track revenue from advice (in whatever way it’s paid), and require those whose advice revenue is greater than 25% of their total income to register as RIAs. Those that do not should not be allowed to provide advice and, more importantly, should not be allowed to use the term adviser or advisor in promoting themselves.”

    Artie Green
    CFP and principal of RIA Cognizant Wealth Advisors
    Palo Alto, California

    Respect for differences

    “BDs and IAs simply have different relationships with their clients, and, as such, investors have different expectations depending on whether they are working with a BD or an IA. The principles-based framework embodied in the proposals will help investors understand the differences between BDs and IAs, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions about the type of financial professional that would best meet their needs.”

    Catherine Weatherford
    CEO of Insured Retirement Institute

    Lessons from across the pond?

    “As an industry, we should move to the education-based commission-free system put in place in the United Kingdom in 2013. The fiduciary standard should only be used by fee-only advisors that work to educate clients. It should not be used by commissioned salespeople that simply have too many conflicts of interest.”

    Bart Fox
    CFP and owner of RIA Fox Custom Financial Planning
    Greenwood, Indiana

    ‘Statistically significant’

    “Flows into mutual funds paying unusually high excess loads declined after the DoL proposed its fiduciary rule in 2015, and this shift was statistically significant. This reduction in the distortionary effect of conflicted payments suggests that firms put in place effective policies and procedures to mitigate conflicts of interest in response to the DoL rule and, further, that the SEC’s proposal could maintain this important momentum.”

    Aron Szapiro 
    Director of policy research, Morningstar

    Consistent standards

    “Both BDs and IAs play an important role in helping Americans manage their financial lives, as well as with accumulating and managing their retirement savings. Retail investors receiving investment advice should receive a consistent standard of care that is solely in their best interest, regardless of whether the advice comes from a BD or an IA.”

    David Certner 
    Legislative policy director at AARP

    Investor confusion? Try advisor confused

    “Even professionals cannot distinguish when a dually registered advisor is providing advice or is acting as a broker. According to your new proposal there’s no change on that and they can keep their ‘advisor’ title even though they may do most of their work as a broker.”

    Genti Cici, 
    CFP and founder of RIA StandUP Advisors
    Owings Mills, Maryland

    ‘Please don’t pass this regulation’

    “I have nothing against financial sales people, but please don’t allow them to say something that isn’t true. What is wrong with the suitability rule? Allow the true to be spoken, either we are truly acting in the best interest or we are providing a product that is suitable. Please don’t pass this regulation which will cause more confusion to the public.”

    Amy Irvine
    CFP and owner of Irvine Wealth Planning Strategies
    Corning, NY

    Originally Posted at Financial Planning on August 14, 2018 by Tobias Salinger, Andrew Welsch, Kerri Anne Renzulli, Sean Allocca, Jessica Mathews.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency