• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

The Institute for the Fiduciary Standard

A resource site for investors, brokers, academics and the media.


Building a fiduciary culture of honesty, integrity, and expertise.

  • About
    • Fiduciary Law
    • Board of Directors
    • Board of Advisors*
    • Chairman’s Council
    • Real Fiduciary™ Practices Board
  • Real Fiduciary™
    • Real Fiduciary™ for Investors
      • Real Fiduciary™ Advisor Registry
      • Why You Need a Real Fiduciary™ Advisor
    • Real Fiduciary™ for Advisors
      • Real Fiduciary™ Affirmation Program
      • Real Fiduciary™ Background
  • Fiduciary September
    • 2022
    • 2021
    • 2020
    • 2019
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2016
    • 2015
    • 2014
    • 2013
    • 2012
  • Frankel Prize
    • 2022
    • 2021
    • 2020
    • 2019
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2016
    • 2015
    • 2014
    • 2013
  • Programs
    • Leadership Through Fiduciary Program
    • “Raise Your Voice” Campaign
    • SEC Conduct Standards Rulemaking
    • Institute Initiatives & News
    • Personal Financial Planning Program Webinars
    • Prior Programs
      • Advisor On My Side
      • No Incidental Investor Initiative
      • Bogle Legacy Forum
        • Bogle Forum
        • Bogle Book
      • August 11th 2015
  • Research
    • Academic Papers
    • Legislation and Rulemaking
    • White Papers
    • Op-Ed Commentary
  • Jack Bogle

Fiduciary Criticism Ignores Both Independent Research and History to Make Case

By Knut Rostad on April 14, 2012

Mary Kissel’s breezy dismissal of the Department of Labor’s (DOL) efforts to update the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) rule (DOW JONES Political Diary, April 12, 2012,) could be easily dismissed as ideological cocktail party chatter, for its huge misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the facts and the law. Yet, there is far too much at stake to let it go. According to the DOL, between private sector defined benefit and defined contribution (401 K and other) plans there are some $6.5 trillion in assets that are mostly managed by employees themselves. How well these retirement nest eggs are managed will significantly impact how well tens of millions of Americans retire.

The most egregious of Kissel’s many misunderstandings may be the simple notion that the absence of the fiduciary standard is “a non problem” because there has been “no evidence of fraud or malfeasance in the broker model.”  While we can agree on one point — that there will always be some fraudsters among investment advisors and broker-dealers, regardless the business model, the key point is quite different. It is that the bulk of the harm that the fiduciary standard mitigates is the entirely lawful conduct permitted today by the broker-dealer business model that is not allowed under ERISA.

Take “conflicts of interest” as an example. When it comes to retail investors (especially) in the capital markets, as noted by the Supreme Court in 1963 in Capital Gains Research Bureau v the SEC, conflicts have long been viewed as harmful to investors. This was one lesson (of many) of the 1929 stock market crash. Kissels’ assertion that, absent fraud, conflicts are a non-problem blithely essentially attempts to rewrite this and other history. Investors pay dearly in the additional costs piled on by conflicted advice. Numerous independent studies, studies that have not been challenged by the industry participants opposing DOL’s initiative, clearly underscore how conflicts of interests are linked to higher investor-paid costs and, the consequent lower retirement account returns.

DOL’s fiduciary rule initiative is undergoing reexamination by the DOL, a reexamination that will benefit from serious and constructive criticism from industry participants. Rewriting the history of the harm of conflicted advice in the capital markets, so to be able to conclude that restraining conflicted advice is “regulatory overreach” is neither serious nor constructive. Given the importance of retirement planning to the country’s welfare, It may not even qualify as good cocktail party chatter.

Dan Moisand

 

Dan Moisand is a nationally recognized fiduciary fee-only financial planner, an Institute Real Fiduciary™ Advisor and Chair-elect of the CFP Board.

The Institute has enshrined the ‘Moisand Rule’ on fiduciary practices. It is basic and is more important today than ever: “You have to avoid conflicts. If I avoid a conflict, I don’t worry about it.”

Watch the video of Moisand speaking here.

Bob Veres

 

Bob Veres is a long term observer of financial planning. His Newsletter, “Inside information” Is a staple of leading planners. In the May edition he writes about fiduciary and the Institute.

"But a much bigger point is that the fiduciary standard—as Knut Rostad of the Institute for the Fiduciary Standard has pointed out—has been determined by the Supreme Court (1963 ruling) to be at the very heart of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. It is the foundation of what it means to be an RIA registered with the SEC instead of a tipster or a tout."

- Bob Veres, Parting Thoughts ... The SEC's Own Compliance Culture

  • Contact

 

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Copyright © 2023 · Web Design by Milkweed Web