Other Voices

Industry needs a clear set of regulatory priorities

Jul 13, 2014 @ 12:01 am

Your article about annuity sales (InvestmentNews, June 30) got me thinking.

As our industry responds to ever more rules by numerous rule-making bodies, I question whether investors are any safer than when there were fewer rules “helping” investors. Sadly, the explosion of more rules and more disclosures does not address the root issue and drowns it in minutiae.

The industry needs a clear set of regulatory priorities, for both firms battling to stay in compliance and those charged with enforcing the rules. For example, a system of levels for infractions could be enacted. A Level One offense, for example, would result in the immediate dismissal of the person and/or firm who committed the infraction. Level Two offenses would result in something less and so on. I think this would send a clear message to investment firms and to the investing public that serious infractions would not be tolerated.

If the industry were to put in a rule that forced advisers and brokers to use an independent, third-party custodian for all investments, I believe this most serious financial crime (stealing investor money) would be reduced dramatically. Alternatively, if a broker or adviser insisted on being his or own custodian, there should be a big warning label on the door of such firms for all potential investors to see, along with heightened audits, paid for by such firms.

How do we stop the “bad guys” from harming investors? We set priorities (Level One, Level Two, etc.) for compliance and for enforcement. Also, we implement safe harbors so that small firms with straightforward businesses and no custody of client assets would not use up disproportionate enforcement resources.

I have had personal experience with poor prioritization of enforcing compliance. In July 2010, after less than four months in business, the firm I manage, Golden Trail Advisers LLC, was audited for a full week by two employees from the SEC. After the audit, we were asked to address a few minor disclosures, which we did. Had there been clear compliance priorities, I believe the SEC could have been in and out in a few hours. While I did not mind the audit, I felt the SEC could have been looking into other firms with more potential for violations.

I have been in the investment advisory business for more than 16 years. There are more rules today than in 1998, but I don't believe investors' money is any safer. It is time to prioritize our compliance for both the investment firms and the regulators.

Mike Sedlak

Managing member

Golden Trail Advisers

Burr Ridge, Ill.

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video

Events

Building digital relationships with a human touch

The word "robo" has stopped being a four-letter word for financial advisers. But how can it be an asset? Quovo's Jeff Hendren explains.

Video Spotlight

Will It Last As Long As Your Clients Do?

Sponsored by Prudential

Video Spotlight

The Catalyst

Sponsored by Pershing

Latest news & opinion

Collective investment trusts getting more attention from 401(k) advisers

The funds are catching on due largely to lower costs and more product availability, but come with some inherent drawbacks.

Vanguard rides robo-advice wave to $65B in assets

Personal Advisor Services, four times the size of its closest competitor, combines digital and human touch.

CFPs, including brokers, may have to adhere to a stricter fiduciary duty

CFP Board revises its standards and aims to beef up fiduciary requirements of certificants.

CFP Board's proposal to expand fiduciary duty draws praise, carries risks

Some question whether brokers will drop the CFP mark or if the CFP Board will strictly enforce its new standard.

Meet our new 40 Under 40s

Introducing 40 young leaders in financial advice. Learn how their passions are driving their success and fueling the future of the industry at large.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print