Podcast Center
Video Center
Webcasts
Resource Center
Events
July 30, 2015 at 12:19 PM
Arguments for and against the Department of Labor’s fiduciary proposal continue to draw attention. Some statements highlight the potential for a significant negative impact on advisors and insurers that sell annuities to retirement plans while others maintain those claims are overblown.
In an effort to present a balanced perspective, I asked the Coalition for Financial Planning (“Coalition”), which supports the proposal, to respond to two key criticisms from the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (NAIFA) blog post, “Here’s why the DOL fiduciary proposal would have a huge impact on advisors and investors.”
NAIFA statement No. 1:
“As currently written, the proposed rule is unworkable for retirement savers and their advisors. It would fundamentally change the way advisors do business, disrupt long-established client-advisor relationships, increase costs for advisors and consumers and prevent advisors from providing retirement investors with certain types of important advice and services.”
Coalition response:
“The DOL’s re-proposed fiduciary rule is both workable and essential; consumers want and benefit from financial advice that is in their best interest, not their advisor’s bottom line. At its core, the rule would protect them by realigning the rules for retirement advice to better reflect today’s reality, in which Americans are responsible for their retirement security. The rule would also preserve advisors’ flexibility and adaptability without negatively altering their client relationships.”
NAIFA statement No. 2:
“The regulations would certainly reduce the availability of services and advice as some advisors would either shift their practices away from the retirement sector or would drop middle- and lower-market clients who would not be able to afford the increased costs. Consumers may find themselves unable to continue working with advisors they know and trust and may be unable to receive advice in a number of common, yet complicated, retirement-investment situations.”
