|Conflicts Of Interest?|
I Want To Know About Them
I understand the pushback that the rule is getting from the industry. Having been a registered broker-dealer with the Securities and Exchange Commission and a registered Commodities Futures Introducing Broker with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, I spent a couple of decades complying with rules and regulations that seemed onerous and unnecessary and intrusive and damned expensive. But as things turned out a few years ago, they didn't go far enough. That's why even though the "fiduciary rule" will hit most brokers with the same force that continually bugged me, it's a good add-on. As the crash of '08 demonstrated, the industry needs all the transparency that can be forced on it. That a broker has to demonstrate to a client that the broker might have a compelling personal interest in a suggested investment seems like pretty sensible stuff to me.
Why our U.S. Senator Mike Rounds doesn't see it that way makes no sense. Rounds yesterday issued a statement opposing the fiduciary rule, saying it will "have harmful consequences" for retirement savers, that it "will limit the availability of retirement investment advice," especially for "low- and moderate-income Americans." He says that the rule is just another
I Know I Can Trust You Now
As to limiting services to "low- and moderate-income Americans," Rounds needs to explain how that would come about because of the fiduciary rule. A simple and straightforward document prepared by every broker explaining individual and corporate connections to recommended investments can't be that hard to produce. The mega financial advisor-servicing firm LPL (14,000 advisors in the U.S./at least 10 within two hundred miles of the Black Hills) even told the Wall Street Journal that "it was pleased" with DOL's changes to the fiduciary rule. The fact that a raft of other brokers are fighting against this required disclosure makes them look kind of suspect to me. What are they trying to hide? And why is Senator Rounds standing with them in their battle against transparency?