Wealth Management

(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.

(New York)

Every investor and advisor knows the mantra: past success does not predict future performance, or some iteration thereof. Countless market studies have proven the mantra. However, what about areas where the saying does not hold true? In private, non-liquid markets, studies actually show the opposite—that past performance actually does a good job predicting future success. For instance, in private equity and venture capital, funds with performance in the top and bottom quartile are very likely to continue in that quartile time and again.


FINSUM: So this is quite an interesting finding, but one with an equally curious subplot. It is not actually the funds that are predictive of the performance, instead it is the individual dealmakers in the funds, the study found. All these results make sense to us because VC and PE are not like large liquid markets, a lot of who gets access to the best deals depends on reputation, which allows winners to keep thriving.

Contact Us

Newsletter

Subscribe

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

Top