A- A A+

America having its own debate about financial advice

Staff reporter |  25 March 2015  |  Super

debate is not just Australian financial advisers who are coming under intense scrutiny. A debate is raging in the United States as well. In the US, pension funds are called 401(k) funds. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Labor (DOL) have been drawn into a debate about whether brokers should act in the interest of the clients.

This is the same kind of debate underpinning the furore over the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms in Australia. Are financial advisers or brokers sales people, or people providing a service to clients who are answerable for the quality of that service?

Here is one article:

Later this spring, the DOL is expected to release for comment a rule that would require brokers to act in the best interest of their clients, or meet a fiduciary duty, when handling 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts. Last week, Ms. White told an audience at a Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association meeting she would like the SEC to proceed with its own fiduciary-duty rule for retail investment advice.

Opponents of the DOL rule want the agency to halt its rulemaking process until the SEC acts. Ms. White said the timing of one measure will not affect the other. She also said her backing of fiduciary duty was not related to the DOL activity.


“We are separate agencies, and we need to proceed separately when we think that the time is right and we have something that we think should advance,” Ms. White said.

The DOL rule is being reviewed at the Office of Management and Budget after getting the strong backing of the White House. If the OMB signs off, as expected, the DOL will put the rule out for public comment and work toward finalization.

The Dodd-Frank financial reform law gave the SEC the authority to promulgate its own fiduciary-duty rule. The agency has not acted in nearly five years.

Several lawmakers pressed Ms. White on whether a fiduciary-duty standard for retail investment advice would raise regulatory costs for brokers and force them to abandon investors with modest assets.

Rep. Steve Stivers, R-Ohio, asserted that a fiduciary-duty rule would “leave the little guy out.”

Ms. White said raising requirements for brokers to a best-interest standard, which investment advisers already meet, is good for small investors.

“It's to the benefit of retail investors,” Ms. White said. “That's who we're acting for.”

 



Similar articles from Super

Churn in the financial advice industry

Staff reporter | 3/23/2015

exitThe financial advice sector is making a come back, but there is a high level of dissatisfaction amongst some clients. Many also consider full service too costly.


Combining the housing and super juggernauts

David James | 3/11/2015

Joe HockeyPutting together super and housing would distort the Australian economy even more. Treasurer Joe Hockey's flagging of the idea seems ill advised.


When to quit an SMSF

 | 12/18/2014

ByeA Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to PSI readers. To end the year, we look at when an SMSF is closed.


Cutting out the middle man

 | 12/14/2014

Rick KlinkSMSF investors who are looking to diversify their investments often find themselves paying high annual fees. One provider reckons they have the solution.


The conflicts of interest in super, wealth management and financial advice

 | 12/8/2014

conflictThe dominance of the banks and insurance companies has defined the wealth management, super and fianncial advice industries. There are many potential structural conflicts of interest and DIY super investors need to understand the implications.


 

Subscribe

Subscribe to the Personal Super Investor weekly email to keep abreast of developments in SMSF law and investment markets. SMSF investors looking to improve investment returns from shares, property, cash or other specialised investments, will find the PSI weekly newsletter an invaluable resource.

Subscribe now »

Disclaimer

The contents of this website are of a general nature only and have not been prepared to take into account any particular investor's objectives, financial situation or particular needs. Our content is not intended to be advice and must not be relied upon as such. You should seek independent advice tailored to your specific circumstances prior to making any decisions. Personal Super Investor does not provide financial product advice or recommend any financial products: Where this website or it derived newsletter/electronic publication refers to a particular financial product, whether it be within our editorial or a 3rd party advertising, advertising promotion or advertorial, then you should obtain a Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) relating to that product and consider the PDS before making any decision about whether to acquire the product. We also recommend that you should seek professional advice from a financial adviser before making any decision to purchase any financial product referred to on this website. We do not make any representation or warranty that any material on the Personal Super Investor website will be reliable, accurate or complete, nor do we accept any responsibility arising in any way from errors or omissions of our content or any content provided by any advertiser appearing the Personal Super Investor website. We will not be liable for loss resulting from any action or decision by you in reliance on the Material (whether editorial or advertising) on the Personal Super Investor website, nor any interruption, delay in operation or transmission, virus, communications failure, Internet access difficulties, or malfunction in your equipment or software. By using the site you acknowledge that we are not responsible for, and accept no liability in relation to any content contained on the site that you may use, including any other users’ use of the Personal Super Investor website in any circumstance. You use the Personal Super Investor website at your sole risk.