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
  • Why financial planners should support a strong fiduciary rule

    January 9, 2018 by Barbara Roper

    Financial planners who embrace a fiduciary standard have been staunch allies in defending the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule and fighting to extend its strong protections to all investment accounts. In contrast, lobbyists for broker-dealers have fought for a standard that allows brokers to say they are subject to a best interest standard without actually having to change any of their harmful business practices.

    That second message was on display in Mark Elzweig’s Dec. 20 Voices column, “Fiduciary rule should be decided by Congress,” in which he argues that Congress needs to step in to clean up the “mess” the Labor Department rule is causing. Elzweig ignores evidence of the rule’s many beneficial effects — reductions in conflicts, improved product menus and availability of fiduciary advice to even the smallest of accounts — in order to claim that investors are being harmed.

    He even points to concerns raised by the Consumer Federation of America about brokers’ inappropriately switching customers into higher cost fee accounts as evidence of that harm. As our letter to Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta makes clear, however, this harm is caused by the Labor Department’s failure to enforce the rule, not by the rule itself.

    Instead, Elzweig suggests that harmful effects of the rule are the inevitable result of trusting regulatory decisions to regulators and nonprofits, “who have no skin in the game.” It’s better, apparently, to leave policy decisions to the industry groups that profit from the harmful practices regulations would curtail and the politicians who benefit from their campaign contributions.

    All of which leads Elzweig to support legislation from Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Mo., which has been lauded by broker-dealer and insurance lobbyists and which Elzweig claims provides a “common-sense best-interest standard for broker-dealers.”

    There is a hole in Elzweig’s logic, however. The Wagner bill has been opposed, not just by investor advocates like CFA, but also by major financial planner and investment advisor associations including IAA, FPA, NAPFA, and CFP Board. Their members are uniquely qualified to comment, as they have considerable real-world business experience applying a fiduciary standard in a variety of advisory business models.

    In its opposition letter to the Wagner bill, the Financial Planning Coalition wrote that the bill’s “vague statutory framework… amounts to nothing more than an inconsistent suitability standard” and “will only lead to diminished investor protection and increased investor confusion.”

    Ironically, the Consumer Federation of America seems to have more faith in the brokerage industry’s ability to develop a pro-investor approach to commission account than either Elzweig or the industry’s own lobbyists.

    In fact, CFA has long acknowledged that commissions are no more inherently conflicted than other forms of compensation. That view is reflected in the Labor Department rule as well, which permits commissions, but seeks to rein in all the other problematic conflicts industry has built into commission accounts — things like sales quotas and, on the insurance side, sales contests with lavish trips as rewards, retroactive ratcheted payout grids that ratchet up the conflicts as brokers approach the next payout level and compensation differentials that mean brokers can earn two, five or ten times as much selling one investment product over another.

    Eliminating these practices, which encourage brokers to make recommendations based on their own financial interests rather than customers’ best interests, has the potential to make commission accounts an attractive option for investors, albeit a far less profitable option for those brokers who have exploited loopholes in the fiduciary standard to push high-cost, opaque and illiquid investments on their unsuspecting clients.

    Unfortunately, the benefits of the Labor Department rule have been put on hold while the department gives special interests one more chance to make their case for weakening the rule. As responsible industry groups like the Financial Planning Coalition have made clear, that would be bad for investors and bad for the profession.

    Originally Posted at FinancialPlanning on January 2, 2018 by Barbara Roper.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency