Chef Jim Posted April 8, 2016 Author Share Posted April 8, 2016 "It's pretty obvious if people are expecting financial advice they should be able to count on the fact that it's going to be real advice to help improve your situation," says Bill Harris, the CEO of Personal Capital and former CEO of PayPal. Many advisers genuinely want to help their clients. But currently, it is legal for an adviser to get paid more money (similar to a kickback) if he or she gets you to invest in fund A instead of fund B. For example, an adviser might make $200 if he or she has you invest $10,000 in a stock fund but only $130 if he or she has you invest in a bond fund, according to University of Mississippi law professor Mercer Bullard. Advisers recommend the fund that pays them more about half the time, one study found. "Brokers are salespeople. They sell whatever they and their firm make the most money on," argues Harris. His firm already abides by the rule. It charges clients a flat fee for advice so there's no conflict of interest. http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/06/investing/retirement-investing-fiduciary-rule/ And that's wrong I get that point but there are better ways to fix that challenge. How hard is it to level the fees? There are other high commission products and are they abused? Sure but the industry is highly regulated already and greed will always finds a way to abuse. So go ahead and make it more difficult and for some impossible to make a living in this business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 I get that point but there are better ways to fix that challenge. How hard is it to level the fees? There are other high commission products and are they abused? Sure but the industry is highly regulated already and greed will always finds a way to abuse. So go ahead and make it more difficult and for some impossible to make a living in this business. Why is the Department of Labor innvolved in this? What is the "labor" issue? Wouldn't this be Treasury or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Why is the Department of Labor innvolved in this? What is the "labor" issue? Wouldn't this be Treasury or something? Executive overreach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Executive overreach. I understand, but in which way. They have to give SOME explanation. Is it getting all the workers certified? And what does that do for hiring? What are the training costs of becoming a fiduciary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 8, 2016 Author Share Posted April 8, 2016 I understand, but in which way. They have to give SOME explanation. Is it getting all the workers certified? And what does that do for hiring? What are the training costs of becoming a fiduciary? Some cynics feel that it is so these changes can be done via Executive Order because the DOL reports directly to the Executive Branch. Others are saying it's because the DOL enforces ERISA. That's fine (sort of) because ERISA regulates defined benefit and defined contribution plans. How this ruling now incorporates ALL qualified retirement plans (ie IRA's) is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Some cynics feel that it is so these changes can be done via Executive Order because the DOL reports directly to the Executive Branch. Others are saying it's because the DOL enforces ERISA. That's fine (sort of) because ERISA regulates defined benefit and defined contribution plans. How this ruling now incorporates ALL qualified retirement plans (ie IRA's) is beyond me. Because the vast majority of IRA dollars come from the rollover of qualified work place plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Some cynics feel that it is so these changes can be done via Executive Order because the DOL reports directly to the Executive Branch. Others are saying it's because the DOL enforces ERISA. That's fine (sort of) because ERISA regulates defined benefit and defined contribution plans. How this ruling now incorporates ALL qualified retirement plans (ie IRA's) is beyond me. Interstate commerce clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 8, 2016 Author Share Posted April 8, 2016 Because the vast majority of IRA dollars come from the rollover of qualified work place plans. Correct but once that happens they are no longer DOL enforced ERISA plans. BTW buy having retirement plans needing fiduciary oversight is actually going to increase the fees that people will be paying over the long run. For the most part anyway. Firms like ours that have been proactive in the run up to the ruling are going to be gathering a ton of fee based business which is very profitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Wickard v. Filburn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Correct but once that happens they are no longer DOL enforced ERISA plans. BTW buy having retirement plans needing fiduciary oversight is actually going to increase the fees that people will be paying over the long run. For the most part anyway. Firms like ours that have been proactive in the run up to the ruling are going to be gathering a ton of fee based business which is very profitable. Yes, but that was the argument that they advanced, which is what all of this is predicated on. Interstate commerce clause. That only relates to Congress. This is the Executive equivalence. Apologies if that was what you were getting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 allegorical with gatorman = allegatorman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts