(New York)

Back in late 2016, Merrill Lynch announced that it was abandoning commissions for its brokers. On the back of the shift to the DOL’s fiduciary rule, the firm was forcing clients to either move to fee-based accounts or downgrade to its Merrill Edge discount brokerage. Now, with the DOL rule gone, the firm is considering reversing that decision. Merrill admits that some clients left the firm because the cost of fee-based accounts was more expensive than commissions. Merrill will be considering a change for a 60-day review period.

FINSUM: Having only fee-based accounts always seemed like a bad idea to us because a large subset of customers would see their total fees rise significantly. However, the move fit nicely with the pre-DOL rule environment. Now that things have changed, we suspect the stance might be reversed.

(Washington)

There have been a handful of articles lately presenting how one can protect their portfolio from the current trade war (hint, stay away from food companies and autos). But there have been many fewer saying how to buy into the trade war. The answer is that investors should buy less vulnerable sectors, such as semiconductors and biotechnology, which will not be as impacted by tariffs. Banks are also likely to prosper as the economy continues its run.

FINSUM: We think the idea of biotech and banks is quite a solid one. Both seem to have little direct exposure to tariffs.

(New York)

A new study out of Harvard makes a very interesting point about US home prices. While real estate prices have seen a strong and steady rise since the bottoms of the Crisis, and prices in many markets seem very lofty, the truth is that the cost of owning a home actually hasn’t risen for the last thirty years. How is that possible? The answer is that while home prices have risen compared to income, interest rates have also fallen strongly, meaning the monthly mortgage payment it costs to actually own a home has remained pretty much flat sine 1987 (on an inflation-adjusted basis).

FINSUM: So this is a good point, but the reality is that the monthly payment does not account for the huge down payment that families now need to come up with (which they did not back when interest rates were at 12%).

(Beijing)

With the US-led tariffs battle in full swing, Americans tend to focus on how such tariffs are affecting our own country. However, to understand how things may play out, we need to see what is happening on the other side. While US markets have taken a shallow hit from the potential trade war, Chinese shares are plummeting, and a very near to a bear market. Both the country’s Shanghai and Shenzhen indexes are at almost a 19% loss from their peak in January, just a hair off the 20% loss that qualifies as a bear market. According to one Chinese securities analyst, “It’s mainly the trade war that has created such panic in the market because the latest developments have surpassed the expectations of many people in China”.

FINSUM: We wonder how much this kind of market pressure will compel the Chinese government to give in to some of the US’ demands? The counter point to that view is that since the country is not a democracy, the government doesn’t really have to worry all that much if people are upset. That is a very blunt view of the situation, but one we think is fundamentally true.

(Washington)

The SEC’s new best interest rule has garnered a great deal of feedback. While on the whole the industry’s reception has been positive, there is some criticism and the view that the rule needs fine tuning, particularly in regards to the use of the “advisor” title. Well, there is apparently also a big loophole in the rule: there is no best interest standard for brokers providing advice to 401(k) sponsors because such sponsors to not fall under the SEC’s definition of a “retail” investor. According to the American Retirement Association, “The commission should clarify that the definition of retail customers include nonprofessional fiduciaries of retirement plans … Otherwise, what you have is an unlevel playing field”.

FINSUM: This seems like something the SEC just missed (especially because the loophole is created by two separate components not fitting well). We suspect this will be amended.