We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,155)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (414)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (800)
  • Wink's Articles (353)
  • Wink's Inside Story (274)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • Pro-Fiduciary Group Pushes for SEC Action: BLOG

    December 15, 2014 by Linda Koco

    Once again, a coalition of pro-fiduciary trade groups is urging Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to expand the fiduciary standard to include broker-dealers (B/Ds) when they provide personalized investment advice to retail investors.

    This time, the message accompanies an eight-page letter that the Financial Planning Coalition recently delivered to the SEC. The letter argues in support of the SEC making a “thorough, well-reasoned economic analysis” of regulatory standards for retail B/Ds and investment advisors when providing such advice.

    Perhaps this advocacy comes as no surprise. The five signatories are staunch and long-standing proponents of expanding the fiduciary standard, which currently applies to investment advisors but not to B/Ds. The five include: the Consumer Federation of America, Fund Democracy, Inc., Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, the Financial Planning Association and the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors.

    But the tone of this letter is terser than what normally appears in documents aimed at persuading regulators to take a particular position. It reflects a curious mix of reason and reproach.

    On the “reason” side of things, the letter lays out six key elements that the coalition believes the SEC “must include” in its economic analysis related to fiduciary standards. It lists the elements and gives reasons for them in an orderly fashion. Many documents sent to regulators use a similar format.

    For example, the coalition says the analysis should depict the differences between the suitability and fiduciary standards. “When the Commission issued the Request for Information (RFI) to support this economic analysis, we were deeply troubled to discover that it described the fiduciary standard without once referring to the best interest obligation that is the cornerstone of the fiduciary standard,” the coalition comments. More discussion ensues.

    But then there is the “reproach” aspect of the letter. At various points, the coalition directly criticizes the SEC for its fiduciary oversight.

    For instance, the letter contends that each of the six elements it addresses “represents an area where the Commission has gone astray in the past.” As a result, it says, “the Commission has been either unwilling or unable over the past 25 years to develop a rational policy framework for the delivery of personalized investment advice to retail investors.”

    Later, the letter takes the SEC to task for its “…past actions, and inaction, that have been primarily responsible for blurring the lines between broker-dealers and investment advisers.”

    Further on, it contends that, instead of acting to clarify the division between B/Ds and investment advisors, “the SEC policy adopted policies specifically designed to further erode clear regulatory boundaries.”

    It blames the SEC for choosing “to sweep away the constraints imposed by the laws in order to achieve its own regulatory goals.”

    While all that makes for an interesting read, the natural question to ask is, will this be persuasive? Coalition members likely explored the pros-and-cons on this before delivering their letter to the SEC on Nov. 21, and before deciding to post it on the coalition website yesterday for all to see.

    Perhaps they decided the letter will achieve certain desired outcomes, even if the SEC goes in a different direction. For instance, the letter does present the views members who are dues-paying coalition constituents that want their voices heard. And the strongly worded language implies, though does not state, that the coalition will probably not leave this matter alone.

    Besides, it’s entirely possible that the SEC will take the criticisms in stride right along with the rest of the letter. After all, it’s not the first time the SEC has heard them.

    Current thinking has it that the SEC will publish its economic analysis and a related rulemaking by early next year. Therefore, tensions are running high right now, not only among proponents of fiduciary standard expansion but also among opponents such as groups representing stock brokerages, insurance agents, and big banks. The mood has an eleventh hour feel to it, not unlike the tone of the coalition letter. Everyone is staying tuned, urgently waiting. What will the SEC do?

     

    Originally Posted at InsuranceNewsNet Blog on December 12, 2014 by Linda Koco.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency