Congressman explains why he's trying to stop SEC fiduciary rule

Based on an early personal experience, Oklahoma's Rep. Lankford says “Main Street people” would lose broker access

Jul 21, 2014 @ 12:24 pm

By Mark Schoeff Jr.

In his Oklahoma Senate campaign, Republican Rep. James Lankford said he doesn't hear from voters about raising investment advice standards for brokers.

But he wants to protect constituents from what he calls a harmful potential SEC rule that would impose a uniform fiduciary duty for retail investment advice — a move that would force brokers to legally act in the best interests of their clients.

“This is an issue that's extremely important to Main Street people,” Mr. Lankford said.

He argues that investment advisers aren't interested in helping investors who don't have much net worth. He uses his own life as an example of how brokers reach down farther on the wealth ladder.

“That's who helped us get started when we were a newlywed family with very little money,” Mr. Lankford said, referring to him and his wife. “That option needs to be available to other American families.”

Mr. Lankford is trying to stop the Securities and Exchange Commission from “creating a regulatory scheme that discourages middle- and lower-income Americans from investing” by foisting higher regulatory and liability costs on brokers and driving them out of the advice market for those with modest assets.

“If there are fewer people offering products to [investors], they're losing the encouragement and opportunity to invest,” Mr. Lankford said.

An amendment offered by Mr. Lankford to a spending bill approved by the House last week would bar the SEC from allocating any of its budget to developing or adopting a fiduciary-duty rule. The Dodd-Frank financial reform law gives the SEC the authority to advance the regulation.

Investment advisers already must meet the best-interest standard when working with clients. Brokers meet a less-stringent suitability standard when selling products. Fiduciary advocates expressed disappointment in Mr. Lankford's amendment.

“It shows me that the opponents of the fiduciary duty — the brokerage and insurance industries — continue to work hard in the House to make sure nothing happens,” said David Tittsworth, executive director of the Investment Adviser Association. “I don't think that's good for investors.”

Mr. Lankford, who currently represents a House district that includes Oklahoma City, has raised $2.1 million for his Senate race as of early June, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. He has received $37,400 from the insurance sector and $14,800 from the securities and investment sector.

He denies that his fiduciary-duty amendment was a response to his donors' wishes.

In fact, the major brokerage trade association, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, has long supported a fiduciary standard for retail investment advice. But the organization has recommended that the SEC create a new fiduciary framework that encompasses both brokers and advisers rather than extend advisers’ current fiduciary duty to brokers. It opposes a pending Department of Labor fiduciary duty rule that would apply to retirement accounts.

The fate of Mr. Lankford's amendment is unclear. Unlike the Republican-led House, the Democratic-majority Senate won't likely be interested in a measure that re-opens the Dodd-Frank law.

“The Senate has shown great reticence in fiddling with Dodd-Frank,” said Duane Thompson, a senior policy analyst at Fi360, a fiduciary-duty training firm. “It doesn't look good for Mr. Lankford's amendment.”

The other problem is that a Senate dispute between Democrats and Republicans over the amendment process could prevent the chamber from passing its own appropriations bills.

In that case, Congress may have to settle for a continuing resolution this fall that keeps government agencies running at their current funding levels. Such a measure has been used for the past several years when the House and Senate remained at loggerheads at the end of the government fiscal year on Sept. 30.

Later, the House and Senate may agree to an omnibus appropriations bill, as they did earlier this year.

Either way, Mr. Tittsworth said prospects are dim for Mr. Lankford's amendment.

“I can't see that this is going to be accepted in whatever final bill comes forward,” Mr. Tittsworth said.

Mr. Lankford remains optimistic. He said the House is on the record supporting his amendment, giving it more leverage in spending negotiations with a Senate that has no appropriations bills.


What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Upcoming Event

Mar 13



InvestmentNews is honoring female financial advisers and industry executives who are distinguished leaders at their firms. These women have advanced the business of providing advice through their passion, creativity, inclusive approach and... Learn more

Featured video


Former CIA director John Brennan on the importance of contingency planning for financial advisers

Speaking from the floor of the MarketCounsel Summit in Miami, the ex-CIA director makes a strong case for why financial advisers need to have a plan for managing through a disaster.

Video Spotlight

Help Clients Be Prepared, Not Surprised

Sponsored by Prudential

Recommended Video

Path to growth

Latest news & opinion

Brace for steepest rate hikes since 2006 in new year

Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase predict average interest rates across advanced economies will climb to at least 1 percent in 2018.

Why private equity wants a piece of the RIA market

Several factors, including consolidation in the independent advice industry and PE's own growing mountain of cash, are fueling the zeal to invest.

Finra bars former UBS rep for private securities transactions

Regulator says Kenneth Tyrrell engaged in undisclosed trades worth $13 million.

Stripped of fat commissions, nontraded REIT sales tank

The "income, diversify and interest rate" pitch was never the main draw for brokers.

Morgan Stanley fires former Congressman Harold Ford for misconduct

Allegations against the wirehouse's former managing director include sexual harassment, which Ford denies.


Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print