Court kills the fiduciary rule

quote:

---

Why would anyone use a Financial Advisor when the court allows High Fees and Low Returns as the legal standard.

---

The rule wasn't a bad idea, but like anything Dems introduce, it was overreaching. There needs to be a bit more middle ground on it if it is reintroduced.

Does having an advisor work as a fiduciary not help the individual more, though? I am unsure why this is a good ruling for the common man.

SEC is currently in the works for a fiduciary rule as well.

The vast of majority of financial advisers are looking out for their clients. If their client's book doesn't grow, then their assets under management don't grow either. If the adviser is loose with his clients money, then he will not have many clients in the long-run. Essentially the incentives are inherently setup well. They are setup for a win-win scenario (i.e. both adviser and investor benefit). It's the few bad apples that really screw things up.

Thus the government decides to regulate the market as if all advisers are looking to screw you over. Under the proposed rule, the smaller brokers would have suffered materially due trying to prove a negative (i.e. prove that they didn't choose a poor product for the investor's risk appetite/horizon). The big brokers who helped pushed the bill would have benefited in the longer run with a higher barrier to entry and less competition. Crony Capitalism was killed by the court. Rejoice, and be sure you and those in your circle only act on advice from trusted advisers with a solid track record.

In my experience firms value long term assets under management much more than the ability to push specific or propriety products which may threaten long term growth. I know there are exceptions, but the majority of firms and advisors are much more incentivized to grow their clients portfolio.