Adviser group tells SEC small investors would be hurt by fiduciary standard

Massachusetts' securities chief Galvin begs to differ

Jul 2, 2013 @ 5:13 pm

By Mark Schoeff Jr.

fiduciary standard, advisers, sec, securities and exchange commission, galvin
+ Zoom
William Galvin, the chief Massachusetts securities regulator, says small investors would not suffer from a higher fiduciary standard.

Middle-income investors would be harmed by a rule that the Securities and Exchange Commission is considering that would raise investment advice standards for brokers, according to a letter sent today to the agency by a major trade association for registered representatives.

As part of the letter, the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors released a survey showing that 84% of financial advisers said that their business costs would increase if the SEC lifted the advice bar.

The poll indicated that 43.9% of the respondents would pass on the higher costs to their clients by imposing or increasing fees, while another 48% said they would limit their practice to clients with a minimum amount of assets.

NAIFA and the American College of Financial Services conducted the online poll of 2,419 NAIFA members, school alumni and other financial professionals from May 20-29. About two-thirds of NAIFA's approximately 41,000 members are registered representatives of broker-dealers and mostly sell variable annuities, variable life insurance and mutual funds.

The NAIFA letter responded to an SEC request for information for a cost-benefit analysis the agency is conducting of a potential uniform fiduciary standard for retail investment advice. The deadline for comment letters is July 5.

The Dodd-Frank financial reform law gave the SEC the authority to require that anyone providing retail investment advice act in their clients' best interests, the fiduciary standard that investment advisers already meet. Brokers currently adhere to a less stringent suitability standard that requires that investment products they sell meet an investor's financial needs and risk profile.

In its letter to the SEC, NAIFA emphasized that 83% of the advisers surveyed said that the majority of their clients have investment portfolios of less than $250,000, and more than half serve clients with less than $100,000 in their accounts.

NAIFA argued that raising the broker advice standard to the fiduciary-duty level would increase compliance costs and force them to abandon investors with modest assets.

“We respectfully recommend, therefore, that the SEC not take any action that would amount to an attempt to cure a problem that has not been demonstrated to exist and which could have the unintended effect of reducing the access of middle-and lower-income-market investors to needed financial products, services and advice,” Susan Waters, NAIFA's chief executive, wrote.

A letter filed last week by Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin made the opposite argument. Mr. Galvin asserted that average investors are hurt by brokers who do not have to act in their best interests but rather can sell high-commission, risky alternative investment products as long as they meet the suitability parameters.

He cited a 2010 Massachusetts case in which investors lost $5.7 million on fraudulent private-placement notes. He urged the SEC to find similar data about losses investors incurred due to bad advice from brokers.

“I urge the commission not to capitulate to industry advocates and the courts that would relegate investor protection to a 'bean counter' analysis concerned with the quantification of industry costs to the exclusion of the harmed warm-blooded investor,” wrote Mr. Galvin, the chief Massachusetts securities regulator. “While you cannot put a price on investor protection, you can gauge the price paid by investors from the losses they suffer under the current system.”

Mr. Galvin pointed to his department's recent survey of 192 Massachusetts investment advisers. He said that they indicated that a high fiduciary standard would lower costs to investors by “keeping inappropriate and overly expensive investments” out of their portfolios.

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Sponsored financial news

Upcoming Event

Apr 30

Conference

Retirement Income Summit

Join InvestmentNews at the 12th annual Retirement Income Summit - the industry's premier retirement planning conference.Much has changed - and much remains to be learned. Attend and discuss how the future is full of opportunity for ... Learn more

Featured video

Events

Pershing's Cirrotti: What's next for the fiduciary rule?

The Department of Labor's new fiduciary rule will have a lasting impact on this industry. Have we finally reached the finish line? Pershing's Rob Cirrotti explains what is to come.

Video Spotlight

Will It Last As Long As Your Clients Do?

Sponsored by Prudential

Video Spotlight

The Catalyst

Sponsored by Pershing

Latest news & opinion

Labor's Alexander Acosta and SEC's Jay Clayton tell lawmakers they will work together on fiduciary rule

In separate appearances before Senate panels, the regulators stressed the cooperation that Republican legislators and opponents of the DOL fiduciary rule are demanding.

Brian Block denies cooking the books at Schorsch REIT

Former CFO claims everything he did was 'appropriate' and 'correct.'

Interns will take on several roles at advisory firms this summer

College students are helping with client prep, firm visioning and long-term projects, among other duties.

10 funds with largest 3-year outflows

Even well-managed funds that have beaten the S&P 500’s 10.1% average annual gain have watched investors flee.

Wirehouse training programs are back

At one time, major brokerage houses ran large, expensive training programs for thousands of young brokers, and now it looks as if they are about to return to that model.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print