Displaying items by tag: SEC

(Washington)

The US broker community is currently growing increasingly concerned about the SEC’s new “Regulation Best Interest”. On top of anger over the rules governing the use of titles, brokers have become increasingly worried about a part of the SEC rule which essentially mirrors the DOL’s best interest contract exemption (BICE). The problem is that there are rules governing conflicts of interest that are very similar to the DOL’s, such as brokers having to take steps to resolve conflicts, and minimize compensation incentives for certain products. According to one lawyer representing brokerages, “We believe the commission should replace the DOL rule-based preamble provisions on mitigation and elimination of conflicts with a simple principles-based statement”.

FINSUM: When the rule was first debuted, the general industry reaction was positive. However, the more everyone has dug into it, the more stringent the opposition has become.

(Washington)

The SEC best interest rule has been facing a very tough time. All sides of the argument seem to be against it. Consumer protectionist groups hate the muddled and weak delineating between brokers and advisors, while the industry dislikes the strong rules on title use. Now, there is a new weak spot in the SEC’s approach. The SEC has decided to have “roundtables” with consumers to discern their level of understanding of the rule and get feedback. The move is unusual and the SEC has not disclosed who or how they will do it. All sides again hate this idea, with the head of the Consumer Federation of America saying “Asking investors whether they like the disclosures is virtually meaningless … That needs to be done by disclosure testing experts who know how to design the tests and interpret the results”.

FINSUM: It is very obvious that the SEC’s current poorly defined delineation between brokers and advisors is not going to be easy to understand for consumers. We suspect any kind of consumer testing will help them realize that, but this does seem to be a rather odd and opaque approach.

(Washington)

Everyday it seems less likely that the current SEC best interest rule, “Regulation best interest”, will make it through to implementation in anything near its current form. Not only has the industry complained about its governing of titles, but many say the rule’s complex grouping-but-delineation between brokers and advisors just doesn’t make sense. Now, the group of advocates that succeeded in bringing down the DOL’s fiduciary rule have officially turned their sights on the SEC rule. The group, called NAIFA, says it supports a best interest standard, but vehemently protests the restriction on the use of titles.

FINSUM: We commiserate with the SEC because we understand the logic they used to make this rule, but we do feel the current iteration is doomed.

(Washington)

Try not to lose your mind, but just when the industry thought the DOL’s fiduciary rule was fully dead and gone, it might be coming back. A financial advisor news site, BenefitsPro, has run a piece covering an obscure court move in North Texas on June 28th where a judge issued an order allowing anyone advising “relief” regarding the DOL rule to let the court know by July 12th. What the order means is that state attorney generals, such as from New York, California, and Oregon, could still step in to try to make a case out of the DOL rule.

FINSUM: Those states already tried to step into the Fifth Circuit Court case, but were refused. It is unclear what they will do here, but it stands to reason that they may make a go of it.

(Washington)

A senior wealth management expert, Scot MacKillop, has just run a piece in Wealth Management, arguing that the SEC has made a big mistake in the drafting of its new rule. The piece carefully employs various SEC statements to show that there is no sound logic for why the regulator created an entirely new two-tier structure for regulating brokers versus advisors. The piece makes clear the idea that if there is no fundamental difference between the service of brokers versus an advisor (something the SEC’s Clayton has said), then why should there be a regulatory difference. The SEC could have simply extended the rule from the Advisers Act of 1940 to also cover brokers.

FINSUM: It is true that simply extending the rules to brokers would have created the littlest amount of confusion amongst clients (one of the stated aims of the SEC). But at the same time, the nature of the relationship between brokers and advisors and their clients is different, so we understand the road the SEC took.