Category: Regulatory Impact

DOL Fiduciary Rule Dies… Introduces a new opportunity for financial advisors.

Mark Mersman

So it’s official. The DOL Fiduciary rule is a thing of the past. For many of us in the financial industry, it consumed a lot of our time, energy and resources for the the better part of three years. You couldn’t turn anywhere in the financial news media without seeing it. Yet, its ultimate demise was rather anti-climactic. It died rather quietly compared to all of the noise it made early on.

AdobeStock_81227983.jpeg

I had written a piece for Investment News a while back titled DOL Rule: What’s wrong with the Financial Advice Industry. The point of the piece was to share a few simple thoughts about what I felt was right and wrong about the rule. I still feel the same today as I did then. Hopefully the SEC will introduce a rule that is workable for the industry while addressing the heart of the matter: do what’s best for clients.

The Heart of the Matter

Do what is best for clients. Seems simple, right?

It’s far more complex than that. It’s the reason that the DOL rule (R.I.P.) and the newly proposed SEC rule required more than 1,000 pages each as they struggled to define “best for clients.” It appears as though that definition is fuzzy. The problem is that rule makers want something black and white,  which (in my opinion) is the reason that the “lowest/cheapest fee” argument was the easiest thing for them to attach themselves to when attempting to define “best interests.” Anybody who understands the complexity of the financial industry knows how problematic this can be.

What do Groceries Have to do with this?

I frequently shop at a local grocery store around the corner from my house. We don’t do all of our grocery shopping there, but for quick trips to get many of the basics, this is where my family turns. We do this for a couple of reasons. We happen to like some of the produce there, and the convenience of it being really close to the house (with easy parking) makes it simple.

The big regional/national grocers are an extra 10 minutes away. We do some of our big shopping trips there, but it tends to be something that is planned out in advance (considering we have two little girls that need to be factored into the equation).

Once in a great while, I’m tasked with running out late to get milk or one of the household “necessities.” The gas station on the corner tends to be my “go-to” solution. It’s a quick and easy stop with the added benefit of actually being open at 11 PM.

In each of the above examples, it wouldn’t be uncommon for me to purchase milk during those grocery trips. Our girls are turning into milk-junkies. The cost for a gallon of milk at each of those places varies dramatically. One could argue that the gallon that costs the most (from the gas station), may be the least fresh. But that doesn’t stop me from making that purchase when I need to.

As a consumer, I’m making those purchases based upon something other than price. I’m placing a value on convenience, flexibility, service, and the added benefit of buying local vs. a national chain. Sometimes I think about and look at the price I’ll be paying, but I’ve got enough experience and knowledge to understand that I’ll be paying more in exchange for things that are more important to me at that moment than dollars and cents.

The Opportunity

After the tax reform bill passed, my team created a seminar focused on some of the most recent changes affecting the financial lives of those 50 years and older. I wrote about the opportunity that it presented in a blog post titled 6 Ways to leverage tax reform in your marketing strategy. The focus of the seminar was on three recent law changes:

  1. The Social Security claiming strategy changes
  2. The DOL Fiduciary rule
  3. Tax reform bill

When the DOL rule officially became a thing of the past, I was immediately asked “well are we going to pull that from the presentation?” The question was a valid one that I had received from a number of advisors. I think the expectation was to simply remove that section and just go back to doing things the way we always had.

BUT…

The death of the DOL Fiduciary rule gives advisors an incredible opportunity. We’re provided with the opportunity to educate consumers about how the financial industry works. And while it’s a bizarre analogy, we can share with them the difference between the gas stations, the local grocers and markets, and the national chains. ALL of them have their place within the industry.

We simply need to do a better job of helping consumers arrive at their buying decisions logically, regardless of whether they are buying an investment or a gallon of milk.

Explain what a fiduciary is. Explain why your clients see value in doing business with you. Be transparent. Help them to understand a little bit about the industry and where you fit in. In a world that is going increasingly digital, I’m firmly convinced that there will always be a strong need and desire for financial professionals that want to build relationships with their clients, while helping to hold them accountable for the things that need to be done to help them reach their goals.

We’ll get a fiduciary rule someday. For now, we’ll have to rely on the financial professionals that can objectively explain how the different aspects of the financial industry impact to the very consumers it is there to serve.

 

 

 

 

The World We Live In: How Yelp, YouTube and other platforms can land you in hot water

Mark Mersman

Marketing 101 will teach you that third-party validation is one of the strongest trust-builders available as you seek to grow your customer/client base. This is true for every industry. Small businesses will often rely on testimonials and endorsements from satisfied customers. In fact, small business turn to social media platforms every day to help them accomplish this.

The unfortunate reality is that the financial advice industry has to be extra careful when it comes to testimonials and endorsements, even if they appear to be on the up and up and out of your control.

Just this past week, the Securities and Exchange Commission censured and fined three investment advisers for violating the testimonial rule by promoting their business on Yelp, as well as for advertising testimonials on their website and YouTube channel.

InvestmentNews broke the story earlier this week. 

Let’s dive a little deeper into how this happened (and I’d like to share in the frustration that I’m sure many of you reading this will also have).

From what I’ve gathered, these advisors hired Dr. Len Schwartz, the owner of a marketing consultancy firm Create Your Fate. The story suggests that they hired him for one of his services called “Squeaky Clean Reputation.” The irony is unbelievably laughable if it weren’t such an unfortunate conclusion. (The end result of them hiring him to improve their reputation resulted in the exact opposite). I digress.

Full disclosure: I don’t know Dr. Len Schwartz. I’ve been solicited by him a few different times on LinkedIn, but I’ve never taken the bait. For all I know he could be an incredibly upstanding professional.

With that said, there is some danger in hiring outside consultants/professionals. The liability they have for the work they do for you is FAR LESS than the liability you have. According to the story, Leonard Schwartz and his firm would reach out to the clients of the advisors and solicit testimonials, specifically on Yelp (who knows if the clients were encouraged to provide testimonials elsewhere).

According to one of the advisor’s administrative proceeding notes, Dr. Schwartz was contracted to solicit and compile and post the testimonials on various websites and YouTube.  It goes without saying that this is in direct violation of the testimonial rules. If you’re so inclined, the PDF link below is guidance from the SEC regarding the testimonial rule and social media.

im-guidance-2014-04-1

Stop

Some Guidance and a short rant (I’m sure many of you have the same frustration)

The basic rule regarding testimonials applies to investment advisor representatives. Unfortunately, it does not apply to financial professionals who are only registered representatives and/or insurance agents. This is one of the many flaws with the regulatory nature of our industry. The playing field is not level. For those of you that operate in a fiduciary capacity as investment advisors, I’m sure there is nothing more frustrating than to see other advisors websites littered with testimonials. As a marketer, it irks the heck out of me since establishing third-party credibility/validation is a foundational marketing activity.

Here’s the quick actionable guidance I’ll give you:

  1. Re-assess who you have helping you with your marketing. Evaluate whether they truly know the industry you are in and whether they truly have your best interests at heart. As somebody who builds marketing systems and programs for advisors, compliance with the rules is my number one priority. And yes, it occasionally results in us not being able to do/say some of the things I’d like to be able to say.
  2. Rid yourself of testimonials. I hate it. You hate it. But it needs to be done.
  3. Build third-party credibility in other ways. EARN yourself media opportunities. This is far easier than you may think. There is a little bit of detail regarding this here: Turning Press Into Profits
  4. If your clients are truly willing to give you a testimonial, then they are worthy of cultivating into a referral source in other ways. I call the program “From Clients to Partners.” At the core of the program is a focus on client experience and creating professional contrast. Shoot me a note if you’d like to find out more.

That’s all for now.

Be smart out there! Clients first. No shortcuts.

All the best,

Mark Mersman

 

 

The 4-Corners of the DOL Fiduciary Rule as things stand TODAY!

Mike Walters

Target Readers:

  • Those confused by the DOL Fiduciary Rule and current news.
  • Those in denial and/or not adhering to the current rule status.
  • Those who have received erroneous info from IMOs/FMOs.

Talking Points:

  • Like it or not the DOL rule is already in effect.
  • Advisors are at risk if they are not adhering to the rule.
  • Annuity companies are auditing for PTE 84-24 as of January 2018.
  • The ground has begun shifting again under the DOL rule.

Here’s the Skinny:

As promised, here is my high-level synopsis of what I have been calling “the 4-Corners of DOL status:”

1)  JUNE 2017:  DOL Fiduciary Rule Transitional Relief (currently in effect thru July 1, 2019):

  • Advisors to retirement investors, on all qualified monies and related advice, will be treated as fiduciaries and have an obligation to give advice that adheres to “impartial conduct standards” beginning on June 9, 2017. These fiduciary standards require advisors to adhere to a “best interest standard” when making investment recommendations, charge and/or receive no more than reasonable compensation for their services, refrain from making misleading statements and manage any conflicts.
  • The Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE) applies only to hierarchies involving a Financial Institution (FI), which the DOL recognizes as a BD, RIA, bank or insurance company. FI’s and their advisors must adhere to that stated above, however, all other remaining conditions are delayed until July 1, 2019, such as requirements to make specific written disclosures and representations of fiduciary compliance in communications with investors (meaning written disclosure and client signature is not required under BICE).
  • The amendments to the Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24 (PTE 84-24), which applies only to agents/advisors (not including FIs), relating to insurance and annuities is delayed until July 1, 2019, other than that listed above which is applicable on June 9, 2017. Under the transitional PTE 84-24, the agents/advisors must disclose conflicts of interest plus the sales commission, expressed as a percentage of gross annual premium payments for the first year and for each of the succeeding renewal years, that will be paid to the agent in connection with the purchase of the product. Documentation must be provided to and signed by the client and retained by the agent/advisor for 6 years (meaning written disclosure and client signature is required). NOTE: Many insurance companies announced that they would begin random auditing for PTE 84-24 documentation starting in January 2018.

(for further info and complete footnotes visit https://advisorskinny.com/2017/08/29/did-you-get-abandoned-to-fend-for-yourself-on-dol-pte-84-24/)

Here is a DOL compliance flowchart schematic that may help you visualize the flow and structure that is mandated by the DOL Transitional Relief period under the DOL Fiduciary Rule.

2)  FEBRUARY 2018:  Massachusetts charges Scottrade with the first known enforcement action under the DOL Fiduciary Rule.

“Massachusetts charged Scottrade with dishonest and unethical conduct and failure to supervise, in what is the first known enforcement action under the Department of Labor’s revised fiduciary rule.”

Essentially this was the result of their running two sales contests between June and September 2017.

“The Massachusetts complaint asserts that the Scottrade sales contests encouraged their brokers to put their own interests — winning $285,000 in cash prizes for attaining new assets — ahead of their clients’ interests in building their nest eggs. The complaint seeks an order forcing Scottrade to cease and desist, as well as censuring the firm, requiring it to disgorge ill-gotten profits and imposing a fine.”

DOL officials had previously stated they would not pursue claims against “fiduciaries working diligently and in good faith to comply.”

One would assume, among other allegations, that Massachusetts does not believe that Scottrade was “working diligently and in good faith to comply.”

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, William Galvin, further stated, “If the Department of Labor will not enforce its own laws and rules, then the states must do what they can to protect retirees from firms who believe they can play with peoples’ life savings by conducting sophomoric (sales) contests.”[5]

Other States are expected to follow the Massachusetts lead.[6]

Many believe that any (and all) sales contests or sales incentives create a conflict of interest and negate a firm’s ability to comply with the best-interest standard.  The Director of Investor Protection at the Consumer Federation of America said the case “perfectly illustrates the kind of practices that go on behind the scenes at firms that claim to be complying with a best-interest standard.”

(for further info and complete footnotes visit https://advisorskinny.com/2018/02/27/dol-fiduciary-rule-violation-charges-proof-the-dol-rule-is-live/)

3)  MARCH 2018:  The 10th District Court of Appeals upheld the DOL Fiduciary Rule.

It was “argued that the DOL rule treated fixed indexed annuities arbitrarily by forcing the products under the best-interest contract exemption, a provision of the regulation that allows brokers to earn variable compensation as long as they sign a legally binding contract to act in the best interests of their clients.”

Currently, Fixed indexed annuities “operate under the same exemption of federal retirement law as fixed annuities. But the DOL put them under the so-called BICE due to their complexity and the potential conflicts of interest associated with their sales.” 

It was also argued that the “DOL violated rule-making procedures and didn’t do a proper economic impact analysis in promulgating the fiduciary rule.”

“The 10th Circuit judges held that DOL followed appropriate administrative procedure, was fair in its treatment of fixed indexed annuities and that it conducted an appropriate economic analysis.”

(for further info and complete footnotes visit https://advisorskinny.com/2018/03/15/dol-fiduciary-rule-upheld-for-fias/)

4)  MARCH 2018:  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals determined the DOL exceeded its statutory authority under ERISA.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals “Held that the agency exceeded its statutory authority under retirement law – the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The judges criticized a key provision of the rule, the best-interest-contract exemption. The BICE allows brokers to receive variable compensation for investment products they recommend, creating a potential conflict, as long as they sign a legally binding agreement to act in a client’s best interests.

‘The BICE supplants former exemptions with a web of duties and legal vulnerabilities,” the majority opinion states. “Expanding the scope of DOL regulation in vast and novel ways is valid only if it is authorized by ERISA Titles I and II.’”

(for further info and complete footnotes visit https://advisorskinny.com/2018/03/15/dol-fiduciary-rule-upheld-for-fias/)

What do I think?

My opinion is that the DOL Fiduciary Rule was poorly written, riddled with confusing and fuzzy explanations, entirely underestimated the complexity and economics of the challenge, and shirked regulatory enforcement responsibilities by defaulting to a free-for-all litigious structure.

On the other hand, I believe the industry needs to create a level-playing filed across all licensure so that a customer/investor can understand and expect to experience a professional standard-of-care that does not allow for outlandish claims and sales practices from certain segments of the marketplace as determined by licensure or lack thereof.

Currently, given the existing landscape, I would surmise the odds are in favor of the DOL Fiduciary Rule ultimately being eliminated and/or replaced by a more appropriate ruling from the SEC.  But then again, no one has a crystal ball.

And in the meantime, the DOL Fiduciary Rule Transitional Relief (as described in #1 above) is in force and continues to be the current standard .  As I’ve warned before, advisors must adhere to the DOL rule accordingly (regardless of any ill-conceived advice they may have received elsewhere).

That’s the Skinny,

 

DOL Fiduciary Rule – Upheld for FIAs

Mike Walters

Here’s the Skinny,

The 10th District Court of Appeals just upheld the DOL Fiduciary Rule. It was “argued that the DOL rule treated fixed indexed annuities arbitrarily by forcing the products under the best-interest contract exemption, a provision of the regulation that allows brokers to earn variable compensation as long as they sign a legally binding contract to act in the best interests of their clients.”

Currently, Fixed indexed annuities “operate under the same exemption of federal retirement law as fixed annuities. But the DOL put them under the so-called BICE due to their complexity and the potential conflicts of interest associated with their sales.” 

It was also argued that the “DOL violated rule-making procedures and didn’t do a proper economic impact analysis in promulgating the fiduciary rule.”

“The 10th Circuit judges held that DOL followed appropriate administrative procedure, was fair in its treatment of fixed indexed annuities and that it conducted an appropriate economic analysis.”[1]

Oddly, it feels as though the DOL Fiduciary Rule is heating up again given all the recent press and State activities.  If you are not properly adhering to the regulatory constraints of the DOL Fiduciary Rule’s “extended delay” (through July 1, 2019), you are placing yourself in significant jeopardy.

For more information click & refer to these previous Advisor Skinny posts…

That’s the Skinny,

DOL Fiduciary Rule Enforcement: How Massachusetts May Have Provided the Spark for a Massive Fire

Mark Mersman

On Thursday, February 15th, the state of Massachusetts charged Scottrade with dishonest and unethical conduct and a failure to supervise. This is believed to be the first known enforcement action under the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule.

Where this will end up, nobody knows, but it could be the spark that triggers a fire within the financial industry. According to the regulator’s complaint, Scottrade violated impartial conduct standards by conducting some sort of sales contest with incentives for their employees to bring in new assets.

Let’s talk about the reality of this: anybody who has been in the industry for any length knows this happens all the time. It has been a part of the wirehouse and insurance sales culture for decades. The problem is this: far too many financial professionals (and the firms they associate with) are under the impression that the Fiduciary Rule (or Conflict of Interest rule) isn’t yet in effect.

As somebody who is actively involved the everyday communications with our own affiliated advisors, as well as the daily efforts to attract new professionals to our firm, I can tell you that there is a great amount of confusion surrounding this rule. In many cases, it isn’t confusion; it is flat out ignorance.

This is what advisors need to know: this rule is in effect. Today. Now. The “delay” that was triggered as a result of the Trump administration only impacted the second phase of the rule. Here’s where it gets a little fuzzy – it was assumed (due to statements coming from Washington, D.C.) that there wouldn’t be enforcement action taking place. The state of Massachusetts has proven that assumption to be faulty. And it won’t surprise me one bit if other states follow suit.

What does this mean to you as a financial professional? Much of that depends on the firms with whom you affiliate, the licensure you maintain, and the recommendations you make. Don’t be mistaken, regardless of your answer to the three questions items listed above, the rule still applies to you. The risk/exposure may be different depending upon your response to those items.

It really comes down to operating in an environment where impartial conduct standards are established and ensuring that those standards are adhered to by the institution and the representatives of that institution. For example, if you are affiliated with a broker-dealer or corporate RIA, has there been a process and standard established to review recommendations for best interests, as well as an honest effort to reduce or eliminate major conflicts of interest? If you affiliate with an insurance brokerage entity (FMO/IMO/MGA), do they understand the importance of adhering to this standard? Unfortunately, many are still running sales contests, sales incentives, and offering production-based compensation. Knowingly or not, many of these activities are a direct violation of the portion of the rule that is in effect and they are putting the professionals with whom they work in the cross-hairs of a potentially devastating regulatory mess.

This isn’t just an opinion. It’s a substantiated fact as evidenced by the state of Massachusetts. You may love the rule. You may hate the rule. You may be like me and think there should be a logical compromise to this regulation that could accomplish the goals of putting the interests of clients first without creating such a confusing and complex overhaul to the way business is done within all of the different entities that operate in the financial industry. None of that matters though. Our feelings about the rule today don’t change the fact that we all need to operate in a new environment. Sadly, some professionals aren’t quite there yet. And what’s even worse is that many financial institutions (broker-dealers, RIAs, FMOs, etc.) aren’t there yet either. And ignorance won’t be much of a defense if a regulator knocks on the door.

In the meantime, this Scottrade charge will be an interesting story to keep an eye on. You may not be aware, but TD Ameritrade is in the final stages of its acquisition of Scottrade. I’m sure this is the last thing they wanted to deal with as this thing gets buttoned up. If it turns out that the Massachusetts regulators have a leg to stand on when it comes to enforcement actions, you can bet that it may pave the way for other states to follow suit.

For more information and details on DOL Requirements, you can refer to our DOL Executive Summary and DOL Extension Fact Sheet.

For those of you already affiliated with USA Financial, you can find this information on the dashboard.

 

 

All the best,

Mark Mersman

DOL Fiduciary Rule – Violation Charges – Proof the DOL Rule is “Live”

Mike Walters

Here’s the Skinny,

As recently stated in the news, “Massachusetts charged Scottrade with dishonest and unethical conduct and failure to supervise, in what is the first known enforcement action under the Department of Labor’s revised fiduciary rule.”[1]

Essentially this was the result of their running two sales contests between June and September 2017.[2]

“The Massachusetts complaint asserts that the Scottrade sales contests encouraged their brokers to put their own interests — winning $285,000 in cash prizes for attaining new assets — ahead of their clients’ interests in building their nest eggs. The complaint seeks an order forcing Scottrade to cease and desist, as well as censuring the firm, requiring it to disgorge ill-gotten profits and imposing a fine.”[3]

DOL officials had previously stated they would not pursue claims against “fiduciaries working diligently and in good faith to comply.”[4]

One would assume, among other allegations, that Massachusetts does not believe that Scottrade was “working diligently and in good faith to comply.”

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, William Galvin, further stated, “If the Department of Labor will not enforce its own laws and rules, then the states must do what they can to protect retirees from firms who believe they can play with peoples’ life savings by conducting sophomoric (sales) contests.”[5]

Other States are expected to follow the Massachusetts lead.[6]

Many believe that any (and all) sales contests or sales incentives create a conflict of interest and negate a firm’s ability to comply with the best-interest standard.  The Director of Investor Protection and the Consumer Federation of America said the case “perfectly illustrates the kind of practices that go on behind the scenes at firms that claim to be complying with a best-interest standard.”[7]

No doubt this is a shock to many advisors and institutions, as I’m sure Scottrade was not alone in running sales contests in 2017-18.  Unfortunately, many professionals have been under the false belief that the DOL Fiduciary Rule was delayed in its entirety, rather than only partially, as is the case.

For more information click & refer to these previous Advisor Skinny posts…

That’s the Skinny,

———————————-
    1. February 15, 2018, Financial Planning, “Scottrade charged with fiduciary violations in rebuke to Trump administration.”
    2. February 15, 2018, Investment News, “Galvin charges Scottrade with DOL fiduciary rule violations.”
    3. February 15, 2018, Investment News, “Galvin charges Scottrade with DOL fiduciary rule violations.”
    4. February 15, 2018, Financial Planning, “Scottrade charged with fiduciary violations in rebuke to Trump administration.”
    5. February 15, 2018, Financial Planning, “Scottrade charged with fiduciary violations in rebuke to Trump administration.”
    6. February 21, 2018, Investment News, “Maryland jumps into fiduciary fray with legislation requiring brokers to act in best interests of clients.”
    7. February 15, 2018, Investment News, “Galvin charges Scottrade with DOL fiduciary rule violations.”

FIA Insurance Companies have begun Auditing for PTE 84-24

Mike Walters

Here’s the Skinny,

If you are not operating under BICE, you better have a PTE 843-24 document signed by clients and in your files for all FIA sales!

At least three of the largest FIA Carriers (Fixed Index Annuity Carriers) have announced that beginning January 2018, they will be conducting random audits and/or random app requests in order to verify that agents/advisors are properly disclosing and collecting client signatures on their PTE 84-24 disclosure forms.

The carriers include (but are not limited to):

  • Allianz Life
  • American Equity
  • Athene USA

Last year I wrote in detail regarding the conundrum for advisors between BICE and PTE 84-24.  As I shared at the time, if your BD and/or Corporate RIA do not extend BICE coverage to you (and most do not) on FIA transactions, then you must adhere to PTE 84-24 on all your FIA transactions.

As I stated in that previous Advisor Skinny blog post…

“Under the transitional PTE 84-24, the agents/advisors must disclose conflicts of interest plus the sales commission, expressed as a percentage of gross annual premium payments for the first year and for each of the succeeding renewal years, that will be paid to the agent in connection with the purchase of the product. Documentation must be provided to and signed by the client and retained by the agent/advisor for 6 years (meaning written disclosure and client signature is required).”

For additional commentary on this subject, click here and refer to the full Advisor Skinny blog post titled,  “Did You Get Abandoned (to Fend for Yourself) on DOL PTE 84-24?”

Again, if you are not afforded BICE coverage, make sure your files are in order and signatures are being obtained under PTE 84-24.

That’s the Skinny,

DOL Rule Delay – What to Believe & NOT Believe!?!

Mike Walters

Image result for department of labor logo

Here’s the Skinny…

Many a false preacher exists when it comes to explaining the DOL Fiduciary Rule delay and its latest requirements. Depending upon the information source (and their economic interest), we’ve unfortunately seen vastly incorrect (and potentially dangerous) explanations being distributed as if they were factual.

Following and/or listening to (or running your business according to) such bad information as if it’s gospel could ultimately devastate you and your organization. It’s important you get it right as the delay is now extended until July 1, 2019 … meaning, you must operate accordingly and by the rules between now and then.

Click here for two complimentary documents:

You can count on the accuracy of these resources as they’ve been prepped and reviewed by attorneys working in the securities and asset management world.

Enjoy!

That’s the Skinny,

 

Did You Get Abandoned (to Fend for Yourself) on DOL PTE 84-24?

Did You Get Abandoned (to Fend for Yourself) on DOL PTE 84-24?

Mike Walters

Here’s the Skinny…

Did You Get Abandoned (to Fend for Yourself) on DOL PTE 84-24?

As it turns out, almost every institution, including BDs, RIAs, IMOs and insurance companies, abandoned their advisors to fend for themselves under the scrutiny of DOL PTE 84-24 (Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24) because they wanted to distance themselves from any risk and liability related to the advisor’s business, but of course they still want to be paid the same …

… meaning advisors inherited 100% of the risk and liability under PTE 84-24 – many of whom never even realized what they’d actually just become subjected to – and it’s nothing to scoff at.

What’s Wrong with the Financial Advice Industry

What’s Wrong with the Financial Advice Industry

Mark Mersman

The following article was an op-ed piece originally published in InvestmentNews.

The political system in our country is broken.               AdobeStock_68670670.jpeg

Sadly, the financial advice industry is following suit.

After a tumultuous, contentious election cycle, the United States is more divided than ever. This division is happening at a time where our country could arguably be at one of its most significant crossroads in its history. The decisions (or indecision) facing our leaders will no doubt change the future of our country. Health care. Foreign relations. Taxes. Social programs. The list goes on. And the financial advice industry is along for the ride.

How One Word is Fueling the Fire