<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Thursday,  November 28 , 2024

Linkedin Pinterest
Check Out Our Newsletters envelope icon
Get the latest news that you care about most in your inbox every week by signing up for our newsletters.
News / Business / Columnists

Singletary: Putting clients’ best interests first

By Michelle Singletary
Published: February 15, 2017, 6:02am

I was involved in an interesting exchange on Facebook recently.

Some of my followers were debating the merits of the Department of Labor’s “fiduciary rule,” which is slated to take effect on April 10 — although the Trump administration has signaled that it may look to delay the implementation.

The rule would require financial professionals to put their clients’ best interests first when giving investment advice on saving for retirement.

Consumer advocates favor the rule. Many financial companies and associations hate it.

By law, an investment adviser who has a “fiduciary duty” must act in the best interests of clients. But investment professionals who are not fiduciaries don’t have to adhere to this standard. Instead, the law says they have to only make sure their advice is “suitable” for the client.

There’s concern that backdoor incentives may result in advisers recommending an investment that makes him or her more money but that is not in the best interest of the client.

This month, President Trump issued a memorandum ordering the Labor Department to “examine the fiduciary duty rule to determine whether it may adversely affect the ability of Americans to gain access to retirement information and financial advice.” He directed the department to “prepare an updated economic and legal analysis.”

You really think this rule hasn’t already gone through years of analysis? It’s been at least six years in the making. The Labor Department received more than 3,000 comment letters. A 2015 report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers, using independent research, estimated that conflicted advice cost investors $17 billion a year.

For the Color of Money Book Club for this month, I’m recommending you read for yourself what the fiduciary rule will do. At dol.gov, search for “Conflict of Interest Final Rule.” You’ll find a link for the actual rule posted in the federal register. For an explainer that will probably make more sense, here are two documents from the Labor Department (DOL), which argued for the rule under President Obama:

• “Department of Labor finalizes rule to address conflicts of interest in retirement advice, saving middle-class families billions of dollars every year.” Here’s the link: www.dol.gov/ProtectYourSavings/FactSheet.htm.

• “FAQs: Conflicts of Interest Rulemaking” can be found at www.dol.gov/featured/protectyoursavings/faqs. Be sure to read: “How can I know if my adviser is acting in my best interest?”

Next, go to Investopedia.com, which has a good history and summary of the arguments for and against the rule. On the homepage, click the link for “DOL Fiduciary Rule Explained as of Feb 3, 2017.”

Many financial industry groups and companies who oppose the rule argue that small investors will be hurt. They contend it could make it more expensive for them to provide advice to investors.

A federal judge smacked down a challenge to the rule. Chief Judge Barbara Lynn for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas wrote in her opinion, “The DOL reasonably found that institutions and advisers that are paid on a commission basis may very well make investment recommendations that benefit themselves, at the expense of plan participants and beneficiaries. Advisers who are paid in asset-based fee arrangements are not faced with such a conflict of interest.”

The order continues: “Because small differences in investment performance will accumulate over time, those differences can have a profound impact on an investor’s retirement income; as the DOL noted, an ‘investor who rolls her retirement savings into an IRA could lose 6 to 12 and possibly as much as 23 percent of the value of her savings over 30 years of retirement by accepting advice from a conflicted financial adviser.'”

I’ll be hosting an online discussion about the rule and any new developments on Feb. 23 at washingtonpost.com/discussions.


Michelle Singletary welcomes comments and column ideas. Reach her in care of The Washington Post, 1150 15th St. N.W., Washington, DC 20071; or singletarym@washpost.com.

Loading...