fiduciary rule - (non-partisan re-post)

[wanaberetiree]

White House memo confuses Wall Street on fate of fiduciary rule | Reuters

Why would not we want to have this rule?

BTW: Bob Brinker (who I regard highly) is puzzled by reverse.

 

[rodi]

< mod hat on >

Please keep the discussion limited to the impact/effect of this executive order... and not based on the politics or politicians involved!

< / mod hat >

< rodi hat on >

I don't know why you would not want a fiduciary relationship with your financial advisor.

Most of us here are hyper focused on fees and their impact on the long term returns... But there are plenty of folks who think "their guy" (FA) has their best interests in mind when they sell them a variable annuity or put them in high load funds with high expense ratios.

I keep talking my BIL out of buying crappy annuities... he wants safety - but when I dig through it and point out the fees (very hidden and hard to find) and the surrender charges... he (so far) backs out... but he still thinks "his guy" is a great guy who wants the best for BIL.

 

[FIREmenow]

White House memo confuses Wall Street on fate of fiduciary rule | Reuters

Why would not we want to have this rule?

BTW: Bob Brinker (who I regard highly) is puzzled by reverse.

The executive order is a REVIEW of Dodd-Frank and the associated regulations. The only people that have insinuated that the fiduciary rule is going away is the biased media.

I am pretty darn sure that it will stay in any REVISED set of regulations, much like the pre-existing conditions part(s) of the ACA will remain in any new HC package.

 

[audreyh1]

The fiduciary rule came out way after Dodd-Frank was passed.

 

[Texas Proud]

The executive order is a REVIEW of Dodd-Frank and the associated regulations. The only people that have insinuated that the fiduciary rule is going away is the biased media.

I am pretty darn sure that it will stay in any REVISED set of regulations, much like the pre-existing conditions part(s) of the ACA will remain in any new HC package.

Actually, I just went to read it and there is a separate review of the fiduciary rule... it is a memorandum...

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/03/presidential-memorandum-fiduciary-duty-rule


Sometimes what we read and hear is not correct, but sometimes it is...

We will see what happens after the review.... I think it does not cause a problem... and it should go into effect....

 

[RobbieB]

My broker takes the fiduciary rule very seriously. My account has been reclassified 3 times (with my approval) so that it fit the proper definition.

 

[rodi]

There is a good discussion of the ins/outs legalities of the executive order and the memo on the fiduciary rule.

President Trump Signs Executive Order Establishing “Core Principles” of Financial Regulation and Addressing the DOL Fiduciary Rule | The National Law Review

This National Law Review article concludes, to paraphrase, "who knows but no immediate change":

Commentary regarding the Order indicates that “insiders” think this Order will result in the implementation of the Rule being delayed and that the Rule ultimately will be rescinded by a subsequent rule. Others believe complete rescission is unlikely for a rule that is advertised as protecting the American investing public. In any case the process will take time.

 

[easysurfer]

A reminder that I like being my own advisor.

 

[FIREmenow]

A reminder that I like being my own advisor.

Yes, but do you have fiduciary responsibility for yourself?

 

[easysurfer]

Yes, but do you have fiduciary responsibility for yourself?

I may have to check and see .

 

[REWahoo]

The only people that have insinuated that the fiduciary rule is going away is the biased media.

Prediction: this thread will not make it past page 2.

 

[HFWR]

In before Porky...

Couldn't find it, but a recent article (CNBC?) seemed to imply "Wall Street" support for not implementing this, but several companies implemented parts of it internally, and are said to have no plans to loosen the rules.

 

[MRG]

Many fund companies didn't want it as they count on sales from advisors. Many insurance companies didn't want it as their variable annuities would be impacted. Most advisors didn't want it as they were going to have to do business different.

Many individuals who think an advisor adds value didn't think they wanted it. Seems like the folks who wanted it were already aware of snake oil salespeople.

 

[MichaelB]

The Fiduciary Rule is under review by the DOL, and to date no specific proposals have been made. When measures are announced for consideration or review we can assess and discuss the impact on early retirement. Until then any discussion is speculative, and while political speculation is interesting, it is not something we encourage on a non-political forum like e-r.org