Dept of Labor issues new Fiduciary/Conflict of Interest Rule

You shouldn't need a rule to get/have your shite together when managing someone else's money.

Lol! If you think this is going to save investors money just wait. all this is, is obamacare for investing. Compliance cost will certainly be passed onto the investor and now the middle class will be hurt even more.

Tale a look at the Krispy Kreme case where Principal helped a retiring manager.

From the court decision, you'll see why the financial industry needs to join ever other industry that has a fiduciary duty.

Lol your big firms like EJ, Ray Jay, MS, and such are going to adapt to this better than most. They already have the option to act in a fiduciary standpoint. The client has had the option to choose which they would rather have. Now the DOL has taken away one of those options for the client essentially. This is a much better deal for the advisor, not the client.

I will say that this rule originally began to hammer down on bankers selling elderly indexed annuities on rollovers, getting 8% commissions and locked in for 10+ years. However, since indexed annuities aren't even regulated they fall out of the oversight on this rule.

quote:

---

Lol your big firms like EJ, Ray Jay, MS, and such are going to adapt to this better than most. They already have the option to act in a fiduciary standpoint. The client has had the option to choose which they would rather have. Now the DOL has taken away one of those options for the client essentially. This is a much better deal for the advisor, not the client.

I will say that this rule originally began to hammer down on bankers selling elderly indexed annuities on rollovers, getting 8% commissions and locked in for 10+ years. However, since indexed annuities aren't even regulated they fall out of the oversight on this rule.

---

I've followed this for over a year. They gutted the rule and it is almost a non-event from a sales perspective for the individual advisor. It will however put pressure on B/Ds from a compliance and supervisory standpoint. Was far far more benign than originally thought.

quote:

---

And if a law were proposed which said attorneys no longer had a duty to act in the best interest of their clients, I imagine you'd be calling us no good sons-of-bitches.

---

I'm an Registration Investment Advisor. RIA's are already reguired to be fiduciaries to their cleints. I was jokingly referring to what the gov't is imposing on the so-called brokers/salemen who only sell one product. Just like there are bad attorneys...there are bad brokers. That's what the rule is intended for. sorry you took offense.

For one that's called churning and already illegal under current FINRA laws. The new DOL laws aren't necessarily protecting you from that.

Secondly, I find it that you're probably exaggerating on the timing of the trades, if so then what you're really upset about is the commission and you need to talk to the fa about that. But ultimately if the guy made you money on something be recommended then why you mad bro? Does he not deserve to be paid for that?

Anyway, there are bad apples everywhere. But your above example mentioned I've seen and heard of happening at BoA ML more than any other.