So, you can imagine my surprise, when I read the following article.

May 20, 2026 by Sheryl J. Moore

In case you didn’t notice, I was on vacation all of last week.

So, you can imagine my surprise, when I read the following article, “NAIC annuity guidance updates divide insurance and advisory groups.”

Insurance and financial planning groups are clashing over whether and how regulators should expand guidance tied to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)‘ best-interest annuity sales rule.

In a pair of comment letters, industry trade groups defended the current framework while the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards argues the model regulation falls short of true fiduciary standards.”

No surprise there.

In response a joint letter, from annuity trade groups (American Council of Life Insurers – ACLI, the COMMITTEE OF ANNUITY INSURERS, Finseca, the INDEXED ANNUITY LEADERSHIP COUNCIL, LLC, the Insured Retirement Institute (IRI), the NAFA (National Association for Fixed Annuities), and NAIFA insisted the the Suitability in Annuity Transactions Model Regulation is doing it’s job.

The CFP Board (by the way, what organization doesn’t have a LinkedIn profile?!?) firmly asserted that the suitability reg isn’t working. Further, they suggested that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) consider “a model regulation that incorporates well‑established fiduciary principles and considers compensation a material conflict of interest.

Slow down there, Hot Rod.

First of all, different doesn’t mean “inferior.”

That means YOU are not better than THEM.

Secondly, compensation is only an issue in the absence of value.

Just because an insurance agent collects a commission, which is paid one time by the insurance company, does not mean that it is inferior to charging a perpetual fee of [1.50%] annually.

Every year. Forevermore.

In fact, the financial planner charging the fee will make more than double the compensation of the annuity agent, over a ten-year period.

AND A COMMISSION WILL NEVER REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THE ANNUITANTS’ INVESTMENT.

Interestingly, the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services asserted that , “In some instances, insufficient information is being collected to determine whether the new product in comparison to the existing product is in the best interest of the consumer.”

Ummm…wasn’t it a requirement that if an annuity is being replaced, that a side-by-side product comparison must be done? I could absolutely be wrong, but I thought that was a part of the existing annuity model reg.?

This is exhausting. I get too emotionally vested. Take a look at the article for more. -sjm