Where key players align in the DOL fiduciary fight
As the proposal's comment period ends Tuesday, here's a snapshot of some of the larger parties' stances.
For
Against
For
Against
/assets/docs src=”/wp-content/uploads2015/07/CI100530720.PNG”
AARP
Rule would reduce bad investment advice that costs retirement savers $17 billion annually.
“Consumers deserve advice in their best interests, not advice that benefits the adviser.” — Nancy LeaMond, chief advocacy and engagement officer
/assets/docs src=”/wp-content/uploads2015/07/CI100533720.PNG”
Financial Planning Coalition (CFP Board, FPA, NAPFA)
Rule would help reduce client confusion about whether an adviser must act in their best interests. FPC will seek clarification of education versus advice and a reduction of disclosure and reporting requirements.
“This reform is long overdue.”— Marilyn Mohrman-Gillis, managing director for public policy and communications at the CFP Board of Standards Inc.
/assets/docs src=”/wp-content/uploads2015/07/CI100536720.PNG”
Consumer Federation of America
Rule sets out specific ways firms and brokers must act as fiduciaries.
“It doesn’t just give lip service to best interests.” — Barbara Roper, director of consumer protection
/assets/docs src=”/wp-content/uploads2015/07/CI100538720.PNG”
President Barack Obama
Rule would help reduce conflicts of interest that cause brokers to steer clients into high-fee products.
“The goal here is to put an end to Wall Street brokers who benefit from backdoor payments or hidden fees at the expense of their clients.”
Against
/assets/docs src=”/wp-content/uploads2015/07/CI100540720.PNG”
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
Giving and receiving retirement advice would become significantly more expensive under the rule.
“In the end, the very same investors the [Labor] Department seeks to protect would likely inadvertently be harmed with limited choices.” — Kenneth E. Bentsen Jr., president and chief executive, in July 20 comment letter
/assets/docs src=”/wp-content/uploads2015/07/CI100541720.PNG”
Financial Services Institute
Best-interests contract exemption is a complex, costly disclosure obligation.
“The current rule as written is unworkable.”— Dale Brown, president and chief executive
/assets/docs src=”/wp-content/uploads2015/07/CI100544720.PNG”
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc.
Rule would cause firms to abandon brokerage for fee-based business model.
“I fear that the uncertainties stemming from contractual analysis and the shortage of useful guidance will lead many firms to close their IRA business.”— Richard Ketchum, chairman and chief executive
/assets/docs src=”/wp-content/uploads2015/07/CI100545720.PNG”
National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors
Rule’s best-interests contract would intimidate clients and significantly raise adviser costs.
“Many [firms] may have no choice but to shift their business to wealthier clients who can afford higher fees or to leave the retirement space altogether.”— Juli McNeely, president
/assets/docs src=”/wp-content/uploads2015/07/CI100547720.PNG”
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Rule would make it more difficult and costly for small businesses to offer retirement plans.
“Nine million small-business-supported households will either completely lose access to employer-sponsored retirement plans or face dramatically higher fees.”— David Hirschmann, president and chief executive, Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness
/assets/docs src=”/wp-content/uploads2015/07/CI100546720.PNG”
Insured Retirement Institute
Rule would curb investor choice in the type of adviser they use.
“We have concerns about the application of this rule and the consequences it will have on retirement savers.”— Lee Covington, senior vice president and general counsel
Learn more about reprints and licensing for this article.
