Displaying items by tag: fiduciary rule

(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.

(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.