Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Breaking: The Fiduciary Rule - killed by the 5th Circuit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Breaking: The Fiduciary Rule - killed by the 5th Circuit

    Read about it here. Can't say I'm upset - there was so much wrong with this rule. We very much need a better proposal in this area, just not sure it's going to happen. Too many conflicts about conflicts of interest.  :roll:
    Our passion is protecting clients and others from predatory advisors. Fox & Co CPAs, Fox & Co Wealth Mgmt. 270-247-6087

  • #2
    The replacement is going to be worse for investors under Trump, not better.  The financial industry has lobbyists working overtime on this!

    Comment


    • #3




      The replacement is going to be worse for investors under Trump, not better.  The financial industry has lobbyists working overtime on this!
      Click to expand...


      That's interesting. How so and what does or doesn't Trump have to do with it? I don't doubt the bit about the lobbyists.
      Our passion is protecting clients and others from predatory advisors. Fox & Co CPAs, Fox & Co Wealth Mgmt. 270-247-6087

      Comment


      • #4
        Obviously my opinion, I cant predict for sure, but many of Trumps advisors are former Goldman Sachs people, especially Steven Mnuchin as treasury secretary.  They aren't going to do anything that wouldn't be good for Wall Street.  Look at whats happened to the CFPB, this administration is not looking out for consumers or investors.

        Comment


        • #5
          So a corporate tax reduction wasn't in the best interest of investors?

          Comment


          • #6


            corporate tax reduction wasn’t in the best interest of investors?
            Click to expand...


            Certainly, but the question is; is the cost worth it?  The passed 'tax reform' is expected to add 1 Trillion to the Federal Deficit.  Some reduction in corporate tax complexity (but not nearly enough IMO), moving to a territorial tax approach (should have been done 20 years ago).

            To JP's original statement; yes alot wrong with the DOL's rules, but the overarching intent was good IMO.  At the end of the day, it is next next to impossible to legislate a person ('advisor') to look out for a client's 'best interest'.  I do hope the entire process will continue to nudge people to understand/question on costs that will in turn change the industry (be it mutual funds, advisor's etc.) to provide a better product at a fair price point.

            Comment


            • #7
              The costs can be debated because it depends on who ends up paying. May be zero sum. In regards to regulations, all have good intentions. But a well-intentioned bill needs to be written well and take into account secondary and tertiary actions/consequences. The $15 min wage laws were written with good intent. But now we have more kiosk driven purchasing than ever and a new restaurant in San Fran that just started rolling out burgers completely made by robots.

              Comment


              • #8
                Maybe it's just me, but I've always found this whole distinction of suitability vs fiduciary so silly?!  I just don't get why there are two standards.  Anyone involved with offering financial advice or offering financial products should be held to a fiduciary standard.  Just like doctors, lawyers, trustees, and the like.  This hurts good financial planners because they're lumped in with salespeople who just want to sell their products.

                This back and forth is such a waste of time and resources, and we will continue to be viewed as the new "ambulance chasers" if this persists.

                Rant over.

                Comment


                • #9




                  Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve always found this whole distinction of suitability vs fiduciary so silly?!  I just don’t get why there are two standards.  Anyone involved with offering financial advice or offering financial products should be held to a fiduciary standard.  Just like doctors, lawyers, trustees, and the like.  This hurts good financial planners because they’re lumped in with salespeople who just want to sell their products.

                  This back and forth is such a waste of time and resources, and we will continue to be viewed as the new “ambulance chasers” if this persists.

                  Rant over.
                  Click to expand...


                  I agree with you, @preetishah. I don’t think there will be any near-term solution, however. As I’m sure you well know, the “suitability standard” was devised by the brokerage industry to numb any suspicions that consumers might have in working with commissioned salespeople. It has worked in their favor for many years.

                  Investment services are a multi-billion $ revenue industry and, as such, they have the power that our relatively small slice of fee-only advisors - and, even smaller slice, fee-only planners - lack. Fee-only planners and advisors will continue to be viewed as ambulance chasers by the majority of the public for many years to come, I fear.
                  Our passion is protecting clients and others from predatory advisors. Fox & Co CPAs, Fox & Co Wealth Mgmt. 270-247-6087

                  Comment


                  • #10




                    Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve always found this whole distinction of suitability vs fiduciary so silly?!  I just don’t get why there are two standards.  Anyone involved with offering financial advice or offering financial products should be held to a fiduciary standard.  Just like doctors, lawyers, trustees, and the like.  This hurts good financial planners because they’re lumped in with salespeople who just want to sell their products.

                    This back and forth is such a waste of time and resources, and we will continue to be viewed as the new “ambulance chasers” if this persists.

                    Rant over.
                    Click to expand...


                    Sadly, this is the appropriate way to view the financial services industry when they fight so hard against basic disclosure and a fiduciary standard.

                    I feel for fee-only people who are offering a different and valuable product, I think they do get lumped in with the host of bad ones.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X