Displaying items by tag: advisor

(New York)

An update to the SEC’s FAQs page has made something abundantly obvious—the title of “advisor” or “adviser” is about to get a lot more contentious. As part of its new Reg BI package, the SEC is bringing in additional rules around the use of titles. Regarding “advisor”, which is completely ubiquitous, the new rules are pretty clear: you cannot call yourself an “advisor” or “adviser” unless you are registered as an investment advisor. Another important note on this, according to Barron’s, “Broker-dealers that are affiliated with RIAs are generally prohibited from using the terms”.

FINSUM: This is a huge disruption to the lingua franca of the industry, but a big boon to investment advisors. Makes us wonder how much the public will actually care.

(Washington)

Well, it was inevitable. The industry has officially started its major fight against the new SEC rule which seeks to stop brokers from using the title of “advisor” (or “adviser”). The National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (NAIFA) is on a winning streak, having been part of the group to take down the DOL’s fiduciary rule. Now it is turning its focus to the SEC title rule. According to NAIFA “We are still analyzing the almost 1,000 pages, and we’ll certainly comment on it, but one area where we have an issue already is the limit on who can use the term ‘advisor”.

FINSUM: It is critical to mention a couple of things here. One, this group, which has been very successful in taking down regulation, is an association of mostly brokers, not fiduciaries, so they have a keen interest in solving this situation. Secondly, the word “advisor” is part of their own name, so the new rule cuts to the heart of their very existence. We have a feeling this component of the SEC rule might prompt as much backlash as the DOL rule did.