Displaying items by tag: brokers

(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)

The SEC rule has been a getting a lot of pushback both in the press and by industry commentators. Now, in what only seemed a matter of time, a more formal campaign against the new rule is taking shape. The new “Raise Your Voice” campaign is being organized by a group of RIAs and seeks to unite fiduciaries in a push against the grouping of brokers and advisors in the new rule.

FINSUM: While we do see the SEC’s logic in how it drafted the new rule, brokers and advisors are very different animals and we believe more delineation needs to be drawn between the two.

(Washington)

Advisors all across the country see a major flaw in the SEC rule. Fiduciaries feel they are being completely short-changed by the rule because the way the SEC has drafted it makes advisors and brokers look like identical twins, almost eliminating the distinction from a client’s perspective, according to the “Raise Your Voice” campaign, or a group of advisors pushing against the rule. “The proposed rules depict broker and advisers as essentially the same, like identical twins, but without identical investor protections”, says the spearhead of the campaign, continuing that “The legal, contractual, business and cultural differences dividing brokers and advisers are important and must be clearly stated and explained”. The campaign is encouraging advisors to make their opinions heard while the SEC comment period is open (it closes August 7th).

FINSUM: The SEC tried to make a rule that avoided over-delineating things as part of an effort to avoid loopholes, but this non-standard approach has made many quite angry. We suspect the rule will be edited significantly.

(New York)

Think about the financial advisor as you conceive it: an entrepreneurial professional driven by an eat-what-you-kill paradigm. For decades that has been the model, but it appears to be changing quickly. In what Barron’s calls the rise of the “advisor zombie”, many advisors are being moved to basic salary and bonus models. Since firms are exiting the broker protocol, it is becoming easier for them to lock advisors in place, and thus constrain their pay, leaving more margin for firms. The model attempts to make clients loyal to firms rather than advisors, much like a branch banker.

FINSUM: This is certainly a dystopian viewpoint, but if you take a look at changes going on in the industry, it looks like a pretty reasonable view.

(Washington)

Advisors all over the country are wondering about a simple question—why the SEC did not use the word “fiduciary” in its new best interest rule. The answer to the question had remained obscure until this week, when SEC chairman Clayton answered it at a conference following a question by FINRA CEO Robert Cook. Clayton said that the new rule is “definitely a fiduciary principle, just like the fiduciary duty in the investment advisor space is a fiduciary principle”, but continuing that calling standards for both brokers and advisors “fiduciary” and “then defining them would not make it clear that the relationship models were different”.

FINSUM: So basically the SEC avoided using the word so as not to muddle the difference between the relationships of brokers to clients vis-a-vis advisors to clients.