The Department of Labor's fiduciary rule has been a battle for our industry for about six years now, and consumers rarely know about or understand the potential changes. But last week, the rule took on a new audience: the viewers of "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver."
I spend almost every day reading something about this rule, whether it be about lawsuits, what advisors should do about it or how the industry should embrace it. The rule itself is extremely complicated and so are the things advisors managing retirement accounts must do. As Oliver explains, "for the average person saving for retirement … [it] doesn't need to be this confusing."
Oliver does a decent job of explaining why the rule came about, but he also sways in favor of the DOL, which doesn't seem to be the opinion of our industry.
I see how many of our industry's people are worried and furious about the harm it could cause, but I also see why the DOL and consumers think the rule is important to protect Americans and their money. Just take a look at this Reddit thread where consumers are concerned about the "hidden fees" their accounts may be facing. Here's a look at hits and misses of the video:
What he got right:
In the beginning of the video, Oliver begins to discuss how the term "financial advisor" is not a credential but rather just a job title. Although he may have angered advisors for mocking their job titles, it's true that consumers may not know these are not reflective of the advisor's credentials.
Oliver goes on to explain how the fiduciary rule is good for consumers because they should have someone acting in their best interests. This makes sense because in order to create a successful retirement plan, many different products and investments will most likely be needed to make sure a client will have enough income for as long as they live. It only makes sense for advisors to be fiduciaries, right?
Where Oliver was wrong:
