Senate Passes Dodd Reform Bill, 59-39; Reconciliation Effort Moves Forward

Of particular interest to advisors is whether the final bill that comes out of conference will include a fiduciary standard for brokers. The House bill includes a provision that will require brokers to adhere to a fiduciary duty, while the Senate bill does not; the Senate bill instead calls for an SEC study of broker and advisor obligations. None of the fiduciary amendments involving fiduciary duty were debated on the Senate floor.

Barbara Roper, director of Investor Protection for the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), said in statement after the Senate bill passed that CFA is “deeply disappointed that the bill does nothing to ensure that brokers have to put their customers’ interests ahead of their own when they give investment advice.” Roper went on to say that “…The least Congress can do is adopt a measure to ensure that those the financial professions investor rely on for advice cannot take advantage of their misplaced trust. Because the Senate failed to provide that protection, we will need to rely on House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank to ensure that the House legislation’s provision on this matter is included in the final bill.”

Industry groups like the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) responded quickly to the Senate’s passage of its version of financial reform. SIFMA President and CEO Tim Ryan said in a statement that SIFMA “opposed” the Senate’s version because “there are several provisions in the current legislation that would undermine the original goals for reform by creating unintended consequences that could have a negative impact on our economy.” Provisions like the so-called Volcker Rule, Ryan said, “would impose sweeping new restrictions on size and activities that were not a cause of the financial crisis.”

Also, Ryan continued, “a number of the provisions in the derivatives section of the bill also remain problematic. Requiring banks to push out their derivatives businesses and limiting their ability to hedge their own risk exposures would not only deplete institutions of much needed capital, it will ultimately hurt consumers through higher mortgage and credit costs.” SIFMA, he said, believes “that requiring financial institutions entering into swap contracts with state governments, pension funds or endowments to act as fiduciaries for their clients is legally unworkable and would limit these clients’ ability to access to vital risk management tools.”