Regulators treated brokerage sales and fiduciary advice differently for years, stressing the harms and risks of conflicts of interest. Avoiding conflicts, if at all possible, was the norm. That was yesterday.
By Knut A. Rostad and Darren M. Fogarty
MiFID II’s standard raises the transparency bar well above the U.S. SEC’s proposed Regulation BI and Form CRS.
By Knut A. Rostad and Darren M. Fogarty — Investors misunderstand how brokers and advisers differ because the information they get from the industry is unclear or misleading.
by Knut A. Rostad and Darren M. Fogarty — New insights into retail investor, financial reps misunderstandings of brokers and advisers.
The SEC’s own Investor Roundtables clearly demonstrate that not even well-educated professionals can understand Form CRS.
In 2016 and 2017, the Consumer Federation of America reported in three separate comment letters that 34 financial firms changed their products and/or product offerings to comply with the DOL Fiduciary Rule. They did so against a backdrop of industry criticism that the Rule would be harmful not only to their own business models, but to their customers and clients as well. Some of the very same firms heftily contributed to that backdrop. However, in announcing their new products and offerings, many of these same firms reversed their position on the impact on investors. Now, they believe such changes are overdue, prudent, and beneficial to customers. Why the switch? And will such product improvements survive the recent vacatur of the DOL Rule? Time will tell.