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
  • Fiduciary duty boosts revenue, not compliance costs: FPC

    July 9, 2013 by Mark Schoeff Jr.

    Financial advisers who operate under a fiduciary duty achieve stronger asset and revenue growth without taking on additional compliance costs, according to a group of adviser advocates.

    In a comment letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday, the Financial Planning Coalition argued that the agency should adopt a uniform fiduciary standard for retail investment advice, which would raise advice requirements for brokers.

    It supported such a move by including in the letter an Aite Group LLC survey showing that 55% of registered investment advisers and 46% of registered representatives acting as fiduciaries experienced more than 10% in annual asset growth from 2007 to 2011. Those numbers compared with 29% for registered reps who are not fiduciaries and charge commissions.

    In revenue, 50% of fiduciary registered representatives and 38% of RIAs achieved more than 10% growth, while 31% of non-fiduciary registered reps reported the same outcome. Aite Group surveyed 498 financial advisers in March 2012.

    The study also demonstrated that 64% of registered reps who work on a fee basis and 65% of investment advisers increased by 5% or more annually the amount of their clients’ assets that they managed, versus 46% for registered reps charging a commission.

    The Financial Planning Coalition — comprising the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc., the Financial Planning Association and the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors — released its letter today.

    Friday was the deadline for a request for information for a cost-benefit analysis the SEC is conducting of a potential uniform fiduciary standard. The agency will use the study to determine whether to proceed with a rule.

    The Dodd-Frank financial reform law gave the SEC the authority to require that anyone providing advice act in their clients’ best interests, which investment advisers must already do. Brokers currently adhere to a less stringent suitability standard that requires that investment products they sell fit an investor’s financial needs and risk profile.

    In its letter, the FPC said that research shows that brokers moving from commission-based accounts to fiduciary accounts do not experience an increase in compliance expenditures.

    “We believe this data supports the adoption of a uniform fiduciary standard,” the coalition wrote. “Such a standard will be a substantial net benefit both to retail customers and to the financial advisers who serve those retail customers, at little or no additional costs.”

    The coalition’s claim about the price tag for harmonization contrasts sharply with letters submitted to the SEC last week by several groups. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, which represents securities firms, banks and asset managers, wrote that nine of its member firms estimated that it would cost each of them $5 million annually to upgrade their compliance, supervision and training systems.

    Another seven firms, SIFMA noted, estimated that if brokers were to adopt disclosure forms similar to those that investment advisers use at the beginning of a client relationship, it would cost about $3 million per firm annually.

    In another letter submitted last week to the commission, the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors cited a poll of 2,419 NAIFA members showing that 84% said that their compliance costs would go up under a fiduciary-duty standard.

    If those costs jumped by 15% or more, 43.9% of respondents said they would pass the increase along to clients. Nearly half said that they would limit their practices to clients with a minimum amount of assets.

    In its letter, NAIFA argued that the vast majority of its members serve middle-income investors with less than $250,000 in their investment accounts. Those clients, NAIFA said, would be hurt by the increased fiduciary compliance costs.

    But the FPC said that the Aite study shows that only 16% of RIAs and registered reps who transitioned from commissioned-based to fee-based businesses in the last five years dropped “mass-market” clients who have less than $100,000 in investible assets.

    “While access to investment advice for middle-income clients is an issue in both fiduciary and non-fiduciary business models, the evidence does not support any conclusion that a fiduciary standard would make that issue worse,” the FPC letter states.

    In a separate comment letter, Schwab Advisor Services told the SEC that compliance costs for RIAs would increase substantially, if the agency applied to advisers the rules for licensing, registration, continuing education, books and records, supervision and client communications that apply to broker-dealers.

    In its March 1 request for information, the SEC said it was considering so-called harmonization of broker and adviser standards.

    Schwab said that a survey of more than 800 of its investment advisers between May 28 and June 7 showed that they anticipated a 63% increase in time spent on compliance and a $175,000 increase in first-year compliance costs and $117,000 in each following year. Overall, the harmonized rules could cost the approximately 10,500 SEC-registered investment advisers $1.83 billion in the first year and $1.23 billion annually thereafter.

    “Schwab respectfully suggests that, given the data from the Schwab Survey, the commission take no further action in terms of harmonizing rules outside of a uniform standard of care, and de-couple its consideration of the uniform standard of care from other potential rule areas for harmonization,” Christopher Gilkerson, Schwab’s deputy general counsel, wrote.

    The Investment Adviser Association also asked the SEC to back off of harmonization.

    “We are aware of no data demonstrating that the broker-dealer regulatory regime is more protective of clients than [investment-adviser regulation],” wrote David Tittsworth, IAA executive director. “On the other hand, converting advisers to the broker-dealer regulatory regime would impose substantial costs on advisers, most of which are small businesses and do not engage in broker-dealer activities, at the expense of investor protection.”

    Originally Posted at InvestmentNews on July 8, 2013 by Mark Schoeff Jr..

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency