Displaying items by tag: SEC

(Washington)

The SEC has been getting a grilling over its new best interest rule. The industry doesn’t like its proposed disclosure document (CSR) or its restriction on the use of titles, while consumer protection groups say the rule is not stringent enough. Yesterday, SEC chairman Clayton faced questions over the rule from the House Financial Services Committee. Answering questions on whether the rule went far enough and whether the rule should be harmonized between brokers and advisors, Clayton explained that brokers and fiduciaries have different relationships with clients and said “There is no conflict-free relationship … Disclosing [conflicts], mitigating them, making sure everybody understands what the motivations are ... that's what I want to do in this space”.

FINSUM: We think Clayton stood his ground quite well, and we particularly like that final quote, which was grounded in realism.

(Washington)

For an industry that was initially happy with the SEC best interest rule proposal, things have really gone south. On top of the battle over the use of the advisor/adviser title, industry critics are slamming the proposal for a new 4-page disclosure document called a “Customer Relationship Summary” which is supposed to “synopsize an advisor’s services, fiduciary status, fees and other information”. Many say the document is too long and arduous for advisors and will only confuse clients. Charles Schwab, for instance, says that the CSR “could saddle advisors with duplicative and unnecessary compliance challenges”. The firm wants a one-page version.

FINSUM: It is interesting to see that the more the industry has dug into the rule proposal, the more it dislikes it. We wonder how much the SEC will revise the rule following the end of the comment period.

(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.

(Washington)

After about a thousand steps, the years-long saga of the DOL fiduciary rule is finally over. As of this week, the DOL missed its final deadline to apply for an appeal of its fifth circuit court loss. The DOL had until Wednesday to file for a Supreme Court appeal of the ruling, which vacated the rule back in March. The missed deadline is no surprise, as the Trump-era DOL has completely backtracked from enforcing the rule.

FINSUM: This seems to be the final nail in the coffin. Now it is time to worry about the SEC’s best interest rule, especially with regard to titles.

(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.