Moving a Few Miles can be as Difficult as Going Cross-Country…

Target Readers:

  1. Advisors struggling with change in their business.
  2. Advisors who are friends with Mike.
  3. Advisors who work with USA Financial.

Talking Points:

  1. Once you begin, you might as well keep the momentum going.
  2. Short-cuts are seldom short-cuts.
  3. Pruning & purging are liberating.

Here’s the Skinny,

I apologize for my recent absence.  Very unexpectedly, we have moved homes.

My two oldest are in college (so mostly out of the house), which leaves just me, my wife, and our youngest.  We had been halfheartedly (read as lackadaisically) looking for a new home over the past two years.  We were in no rush.  But then my wife stumbled onto a home she really liked and we could “see” ourselves in for many years to come.

And if you know the Walters, once a decision is made, we hit the gas pedal and get to high gear as quickly as possible.

Bang – bang real estate conditions in our area had a bit to do with the speed of things, but in a nutshell, we bought a new home in 24 hours and sold our existing home (of 15 years) in under 48 hours.  Bang – bang – done.  And to make things even more interesting, the previous owners of the home we purchased were relocating to Hawaii, so we bought their furniture as well.  Then the buyers of our home expressed a desire to buy our furniture as they were relocating from Chicago.  Bang – bang – done.

Its like we were in college all over again, throw the cloths in the car, bang – bang – done.

Or so I thought.  We soon learned, the traditional moving companies were not interested in “our small job” as there was no furniture involved.  That left us to do all the packing (not something we had anticipated) ourselves.  But the good news is that we were able to prune & purge 15 years of accumulated clutter.  This cut the moving job in half, literally.

In the end…

  1. It turned out that once we determined we were moving, it would have been just as easy (or easier) to tackle a full-on move, including the furniture.  I think many businesses underestimate this truth in managing their projects.  Once you green light a project, often times the small to mid-sized project isn’t any easier than the big monster project.  The hardest part is just starting and gaining momentum.
  2. Getting rid of clutter is good for EVERYONE.  Its liberating.  It increases productivity.  Satisfaction skyrockets.  And efficiency becomes the norm.  Again, I think many businesses (and advisors/executives/staff) overlook the need to prune & purge in order to keep focused on what really matters.

In that vein, below is a link to a great article from John Jones, Digital Marketing & Communication Manager at USA Financial.  He shares great insight on using Facebook as a marketing & seminar tool.  May I suggest you focus on John’s article while thinking how you could revamp, streamline and enhance your seminar/event marketing?

Here is the article link from July 24, 2018, Investment News, “Why advisors are turning to Facebook ads to fill seminar seats”.

I’ll be back at it with regular blogs and podcasts in August.

That’s the Skinny, 

 

 

 

How Advisors Get Left Behind (hint: it’s only by choice)

Target Readers:

  1. Advisors seeking growth and direction.
  2. Advisors struggling to adapt and change as the industry evolves.
  3. Advisors looking to increase profits and/or the value of their practice.

Talking Points:

  1. How has your business changed over the last 10 years?
  2. Do you wish to retire or transition, but your practice valuation is stifled?
  3. Are you continuing to nurture your business successfully?

Here’s the Skinny,

We’ve all heard before the statement, “the only constant is change”…

Take a moment to reflect upon your business 5 years ago, even 10 years ago. Was it exactly as it is today? Or is it dramatically different?

Many in our industry started out as agents in the insurance/annuity business or as registered reps in the securities business. Yet today, a primary focus is more often directed toward assets under management. But even that segment has evolved.

Years ago, many advisors were managing their own portfolios for investors, Rep as PM (portfolio manager) is the common terminology today. Yet, now, the Rep as PM model is dwindling as advisors embrace the scalability of using third-party asset managers and TAMP programs like USA Financial Exchange. Indirectly, this new model has solved two crucial problems for advisors…

  1. Asset gathering (not asset managing) is the revenue lifeblood of a retail practice.  The more time an advisor spends managing money, the less time they spend growing the practice and attracting new assets. Therefore, profits often go up in direct proportion to reduction in directly managing assets.
  2. Rep as PM and/or advisor managed portfolios, stifle the value of an advisor’s practice. They choke out scalability, which can crush the valuation of a practice (no buyer wants to buy “a job,” they want to buy “a business,” and it’s impossible to climb inside the head of the advisor managing the money), but the advisor focused on gathering assets can turnover their systems and processes along with the scalability of third-part asset management. Therefore increasing the valuation of the practice.

The point is, to use another true cliché, “if you aren’t growing you are dying.”

If you do not adapt and remain agile, eventually the marketplace may diminish your worth to the point of disaster. I am not a close follower of Sears, but it did not surprise me to see hundreds of stores closing. (Sears previously announced 166 stores to close this year. Now they’ve added 68 more to the list. There are less than half the Sears stores today as there were just 5 years ago.)

Strictly from my own consumer perspective, they do not appear to have kept pace with digital or online sales, their storefronts have fallen out of favor and seem out of touch with today’s shopper, and the few times I’ve wandered into a Sears store they struck me as being almost vacant on product and in a state of disrepair. At some point simple math will grind such a business to a halt.

Similarly, in our industry, think of the advisors who have not evolved. Conducting their business as if it’s from the 1980’s or 1990’s. Trying to live on commissionable products alone. It’s an uphill battle and we’ve all seen their decline. Business models need to adapt and evolve as the business changes… Or you end up feeling like Sears in an Amazon world.

So how do you stay ahead? Keeping your business on the cutting edge?

  1. You continually enhance your offerings and services, making yourself indispensable to the investor/client.
  2. You continually strengthen the relationship you maintain with the top 50% of your clients, targeting replication of the top 20% (not the bottom 80%).
  3. You automate and utilize technology to reduce the mundane and increase the culture, value, and experience of your staff.
  4. You monitor trends for the future valuation of your practice, which almost always will parallel the future appeal to new investors and clients.
  5. You run an “experience-based” business model that delivers an elite client experience. Not a discounted fee, or diminishing returns model.
  6. You affiliate with institutions that help you accomplish everything listed above.

Things are not the same…  Thank God…  Are you ready?

Everything can (and will) always get better and better with time, as long as you continue to nurture your business as if it is a loved family member. It’s a mindset. And the beautiful option is that you get to choose… Adapt and grow rather than decay and decline.

That’s the Skinny, 

 

 

The Conundrum of Socially Responsible Investing

Target Readers:

  1. Investors confused by socially responsible investing.
  2. Advisors considering additional emphasis on socially responsible investing.
  3. Advisors struggling to gain traction with socially responsible investing.

Talking Points:

  1. Is socially responsible investing as popular as the media promotes?
  2. Will millennials finally bring socially responsible investing mainstream?
  3. Should investors consider adding socially responsible investing into their portfolios?

Here’s the Skinny,

Socially responsible investing is great in theory, but lacks in real life traction.

Sad but true.

People talk a good game, but as I’ve always said, “If you really want to know what people think or believe, study their actions, not just their words.”

Nuveen just released a detailed study titled, “Investor interest in responsible investing soars.”  The study/survey includes great detail within its 9-pages of results, but one graphic including the core questions really caught my attention…

I do not question the validity of the verbal responses from those surveyed.  However, in answering questions number 2, 4, 6, 7, and 9…  I can’t help but wonder, do their “actions” really support their “words” in real life?

For example:

  • In questions 2 and 4, would the respondent actually be willing to take a pay cut to work for such an employer, or do they mean they would expect the same pay, but prefer such an employer?
  • In question 6, would the respondent be willing to pay more for a similar quality product, or do they mean given the same price and quality they would prefer such a product?
  • In question 7, I would propose a similar scenario, but then question 9 seems to cut straight to the point, unless they interpreted it as meaning given equal returns, which would you feel better about?

Human nature is tricky.

In real life, our asset management firm, USA Financial Portformulas, offers 30+ investment model strategies, and one of our least popular models (according to assets invested) is our socially responsible model based upon the S&P 500 universe.  Interestingly, investors seem to love knowing that we have such a model even though they may not invest in it themselves.  I find that predictable, but still intriguing.

Similarly, cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States, yet over 13% of adults age 18-24 still smoke and almost 18% of adults age 25-44 continue to smoke.  In the United States, over 70% of adults age 18+ drank alcohol in the past year (and that’s including ages 18-20, when age 21+ is drinking age).  With a growing trend toward marijuana legalization, 22% of adults admit to current usage (even more than cigarettes).  I believe it’s safe to say, most adults know these things are not good for their health and most would steer their children away from such things…  Yet these industries are all thriving.

Does investing work similarly?

I think, all things being equal, investors prefer the idea of socially responsible portfolios.  But if the socially responsible portfolio does not live up to its “less socially responsible peers” and/or it costs more to return the same or less, then investors generally tend to revert back toward traditional portfolio allocations.  And financial advisors know this, so many do not broach the subject unless the investor makes such a request.

Do I sound cynical or am I just a realist?

I love the idea of socially responsible investing.  And speaking as asset manager, it’s not that difficult to add socially responsible screening mechanisms in order to de-select the socially irresponsible stocks.  But until market demand supports the effort, the effort isn’t worth the price of mass deployment (at least not yet).  Like I said, we promote a socially responsible investment model, yet it is one of the least utilized models we provide.

Additionally, socially responsible investing can become a bit murky.  When does an investment cross the line?  If you wish to invest with social responsibility, but you enjoy craft beer or a nice glass of wine, do you re-include the alcohol industry even though it would normally be excluded?  Or what about a tech firm that has poor data security and/or outright sells data you would deem private – include or exclude?

I’ve read that the socially responsible investing category under professional management is currently as high as 22%, but again, that math is a bit murky as it does not include passive management (only active or professional management).

In the end, many lay claim to millennials being the force behind the ultimate push toward socially responsible investing.  And in many ways that argument makes perfect sense, yet millennials are also credited with the push toward marijuana legalization…  And it may be difficult for those two things to coexist.  Not all that different from previous generations wrestling with ways for socially responsible investing to coexist with the popularity of alcohol.

It’s an emotional subject and a trend to watch closely.  But I contend the trend is probably further off in “action” than it is in “words.”

That’s the Skinny, 

 

 

USA Financial Trending Report – Second Quarter 2018

On April 1, 2018 we celebrated 30 years in Business at USA Financial. I’m assuming most who are reading this have not spent their career in the financial industry, so rather than focus on the minutia and details of “our” story… I’d like to share a few crucial high-altitude observations I’ve gleaned over 30 years of evolutionary corporate leadership (albeit, my leadership experiences are derived from steering a financial services holding company and its collection of synergistic subsidiaries).

Looking back, our growth falls in to 4 stages:

Cornerstone 1 – Walking Flatlands and Climbing Mountains

Cornerstone 2 – The Corporate Security Fallacy (aka Avoiding Valleys)

Cornerstone 3 – Give ‘Em What They Want, Followed by What They Need

Cornerstone 4 – Moonshots are Crucial

I wrote about each of these Cornerstones and my biggest breakthroughs and learning experiences in the latest USA Financial Trending Report. I invite you to take a look and hope you find the cornerstones valuable and entertaining. Next time I’ll get back on task with my financial writings.

That’s the “30-Year” Skinny,

 

 

 

Are you an Entrepreneur (or are you Self-Employed)?

Target Readers:

  1. Those trying to determine how they want their business to grow.
  2. Those who are not sure if they are an “income earner” or a “business builder.”
  3. Those who have hired staff and/or need to hire staff.

Talking Points:

  1. Most do not understand the difference between self-employed and entrepreneur.
  2. Do you want to build a great career?  Or a sustainable business?  Or both?
  3. Consider the lifestyle you desire before building your business model.

Here’s the Skinny,

Most of the world does not understand the difference between being self-employed and being an entrepreneur.

The vast majority of small businesses are comprised of self-employed individuals as opposed to entrepreneurs.  Yet, in error, many self-employed folks will refer to themselves as being entrepreneurs when they are not.

What’s the difference?  Well, let’s start with the definitions from dictionary.com:

Self-Employed  [self-em-ploid]

Earning one’s living directly from one’s own profession or business, as a freelance writer or artist, rather than as an employee earning salary or commission from another.

Entrepreneur  [ahn-truh-pruh-nur]

A person who organizes and manages any enterprise, especially a business, usually with considerable initiative and risk.

As you can see, there is a distinct difference.

This month, USA Financial celebrates its 30th year anniversary and I’m blessed to have shared in the growth over all 30 years (except for the first 2-3 months anyway).  When I reflect back over those three decades, hindsight 20/20, for the first 2 years of USA Financial’s existence, we ran solo and were undoubtedly self-employed.  For the next 8 years we were a more sophisticated version of self-employed, as we had support staff, but we were not much different than a business manager who has gained success and respect enough to be assigned subordinate staff and/or personal assistants by their employer/boss.

It wasn’t until ten years into the life cycle of USA Financial that I can confidently reflect back and realize we transitioned from being self-employed to being entrepreneurs.  In fact, our turning point was a one-two punch beginning in 1998, when we…

  1. officially killed our business structure that emulated the financial services “external wholesaler” model and then;
  2. launched USA Financial Securities, our broker dealer.

Together, this combination of change required we reconstruct an entirely new business model (and strategy) that took two full years for us to completely re-tool, re-educate and re-deploy.  By year 2000, USA Financial was unrecognizable from its former self.

That was our watershed moment in time.  From 1998 to 2000 we transformed ourselves from being self-employed to being entrepreneurs…  And we’ve been growing ever since.

Someone who is self-employed is simply their own boss, working “in” the business.  Whereas an entrepreneur is building a sustainable business model that is not solely dependent upon them for the entity’s ongoing success – and therefore – they tend to spend more time working “on” the business (versus “in” the business).

In our case, the visual transition from self-employed to entrepreneur was dramatic.  Notice the permanent and dramatic change in our revenue growth line in 2001 vs. previous years.  Prior to 2001, we had minimal incremental increases as we worked hard and performed better at our jobs.  But in 2001, we started running an entrepreneurial organization.  And for us, that was the ticket.

Please understand, that being self-employed is a perfect choice and solution for many business owners.  Not everyone desires to grow an organization and take on the entrepreneurial status.  The key is knowing which you desire to be, considering exactly how you desire to intertwine your work life and personal lifestyle so that they successfully co-exist, then structuring your business model and staff accordingly.

That’s the Skinny, 

Important Hiring Perspective(s) as You Grow

Target Readers:

  • Those building their business via staff and hiring.
  • Those struggling to find good candidates. 
  • Those with a poor track record in successful hiring.

Talking Points:

  • How to weed out bad candidates quickly.
  • Understanding what instincts are needed for a candidate.
  • Finding candidates with the right mindset. 

Secure and respected and engaged and risky

Some people want their workplace to be like an artist’s studio. A lab. A dance with the possible. Engaging. Thrilling. The chance to take flight, to be engaged, to risk defeat and to find a new solution to an important problem. 

And some people want a job that’s secure, where they are respected by those around them.

The essential lesson: These are not necessarily different people, but they are very different attitudes. 

It’s a choice, a choice made once a lifetime, or every year, or perhaps day by day…

When you sit with an employee who seeks security and talk to them about “failing fast,” and “understanding the guardrails,” and “speaking up,” it’s not likely to resonate. 

It’s worth finding the right state of mind for the job that needs to be done.

Here’s the Skinny,

An interesting perspective below (from Seth Godin) to keep in mind when managing & hiring…  Not anything we “don’t already know”, but it isn’t always the first thing that may jump-to-mind when dealing with your teams.

Nugget 1: At USA Financial we use a tool called Kolbe in our hiring practice. Kolbe helps identify a person’s “modus operandi” or creative instincts. In my experience, the high Quick Starts (strong with originality, risk-taking, and uncertainty) are usually in the “thrilling group” as described by Seth above, while high Follow Through (provides structure, order, focus, and continuity) tend to be in the “job security group” – high Fact Finder (enjoys complexity and providing the perspective of experience) and high Implementer (provides durability and a sense of the tangible) seem to be about 50/50 in either camp. I’ve found this tool to be very effective at helping us determine if a candidate is a good fit for a particular role.

Nugget 2: At my last Strategic Coach 10x meeting, my friend Dan Sullivan emphasized the importance of the following interview question (especially for weeding out the “wrong kind” of millennial attitude – although its equally important for any potential hire)…  The question is:

“If you are hired by INSERT FIRM NAME HERE, what do you feel you will be entitled to?”

  • Hint:     The correct answer is NOTHING, or a derivative what they will bring to your organization.  Such as, “an opportunity to contribute to the team”, or “the chance to apply my skill set”.  Not any answer along the lines of benefits, tenure, vacation days, or any other unionized or entitlement type response.  I know this is a question the USA Financial team has been using for a while now, but it was a great reminder for me to hear it again from a third-party source.

Nugget 3: God has hardwired each of us differently, and that is highly beneficial to you as an entrepreneur.  The mistake many make is hiring “someone just like them,” where what they most likely need is someone entirely different than them…  Someone who would absolutely love to do the work that you have no interest in doing… The key is to build your team/staff like a snugly fit puzzle.  That is where the magic can be found.

That’s the Skinny, 

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

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

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,