• 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

Will a New DOL Fiduciary Rule be “Destructive?”

By Knut Rostad on August 13, 2013

By Knut Rostad

Saturday’s column by Jason Zweig may be the official start of the battle in Washington between the Department of Labor (DOL) and the brokerage industry regarding an anticipated DOL rule to modernize ERISA to, as Zweig points out, ensure brokers act “solely for the benefit of their clients when advising on individual retirement accounts.” The rule has NOT been released and its provisions are unknown. It may be released in October.

Zweig’s column sets out the opposing arguments in their sharpest form to date. With the debate lines clearly drawn, the arguments invite scrutiny.

Assistant Secretary of Labor, Phyllis Borzi maintains the “Conflict of Interest Rule” will seek to reduce conflicts of interest in the retirement investment marketplace by, among other things, making “advisers legally accountable for the advice they provide.”

The brokerage industry, represented by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association lobbyists (SIFMA), whose new president, former Senator Judd Gregg, just recently took the helm of SIFMA. Gregg represented New Hampshire in the Senate for eighteen years and became a highly respected member and then Chair of the Budget Committee.

Gregg insists, as quoted by Zweig, about the new rule, — a rule that has NOT been released and its provisions are unknown — “It’s a dangerously large expansion that would chill all kinds of activity. Its going to be destructive. The folks with small accounts are going to lose the ability to get advice, and their costs will go up.”

The DOL seeks to reduce conflicts of interest and the securities industry replies that doing so would be “destructive” and result in “small accounts” having no access to advice or guidance.

The crux of the brokerage industry argument seems to be this. The brokerage industry can no longer afford to act “solely for the benefit of their clients,” as it is legally required to do. However, the industry clearly implies it CAN afford to provide conflicted advice, which it is also generally prohibited from doing by law.

1. How do brokerage industry lobbyists account for the many brokers who currently provide fiduciary advice and wish to continue doing so? Are the views of industry lobbyists and fiduciary brokers aligned — or do they clearly diverge?

2. How should the brokerage industry’s admission that it will not be able to meet the requirements of the law be viewed — when, at the very same time registered investment advisers are NOT opposing it? Should the brokerage industry’s argument
be considered, at the very least, a public admission of a failure to adapt with the times and to compete successfully on an even playing field? Would not such an admission of a failure in other industries where competitive market forces matter have dire consequences for the industry and the those responsible for the failure?

These are just a few questions that the brokerage industry’s arguments should raise. There are many others. Let the debate continue.

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