• 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

The SEC Has Lost Sight of Its Purpose

By Knut Rostad on July 17, 2013

By Dan Moisand

To understand the fundamental problem with the regulations surrounding personal financial advice, you need to look no further than this single sentence from the Securities Exchange Commission’s March 1 request for information on the obligations of broker dealers and investment advisers.

“Assume that the uniform fiduciary standard of conduct would be designed to accommodate different business models and fee structures of firms, and would permit broker-dealers to continue to receive commissions.”

The problem, described in crystal clear terms, is that the SEC has lost sight of its purpose.

Regulations are supposed to protect the public not accommodate business models.

They go on to ask us to assume that disclosure is adequate to demonstrate the fiduciary duty of loyalty.  This is sad.  Telling someone what you will do before you wrong them does not make the action acceptable.  Any kindergartner can tell you that.

Too often we see examples of how regulators presuppose that the public has some idea how the financial services world works.  The public doesn’t know the difference between an advisory account and a brokerage account.  “Disclosing” to clients that under certain circumstances, a firm may receive remuneration from affiliated parties or unaffiliated sub-advisors doesn’t tell them what is paid, who is paying it, when it is paid, or how the payment is ultimately drawn from the client’s funds.  The public simply doesn’t know how unprotected they are.

The commission knows this. Several studies highlight investor confusion including ones commissioned by the SEC itself.  Regulations that protect the public should not expect the public to know anything about financial regulations.

The big money forces that influence Congress to pressure the SEC to “accommodate different business models” offer nothing but excuses.  In essence, they are saying if we cannot do things and charge amounts the public doesn’t see or understand, we won’t work with the public.  The SEC should be replying, “Good!” rather than trying to be  accommodating.

If financial services firms can’t meet the only sensible standard that should apply to delivering personal financial advice, they need to change their modus operandi, not work to change the standard.

There are plenty of advisors that will have no problem accepting the fiduciary duties of the Advisor’s Act.  They already behave this way.  Being required to do what you already do is not a burden.  Being required to do something you aren’t doing can be.

I pray the SEC stands up and decides they need to address the problems facing the public, not the problems the financial services industry want to avoid.  We’ll see. So far, I am not encouraged.  Heck, the commission has gone so far away from its purpose it even allowed the National Association of Securities Dealers to change its name to the “Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.”  Here, I was always under the impression that was the SEC’s job.

Dan Moisand is a Founding Member of the Institute’s Industry Council, and a principal at Moisand Fitzgerald Tamayo.

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