CFP Board CEO Kevin Keller is wrong on the facts, the law and common sense.
As we mark the golden anniversary of the creation the undertaking we know call “financial planning,” the CFP Board took a decisive step to enforce a real fiduciary standard by requiring disclosure and informed customer consent of material conflicts.
The CFP Board had noble intentions with its new standards that became effective last month. However, its handling of conflicts falls so short that absent significant new guidance the credibility of the standards is in serious doubt. This is clear from the recent publication of a major insurer’s eye-opening disclosure intended to address conflicts.
On September 24, the specter of impeachment became a reality, as the House began its official inquiry. The case for impeachment may involve whether the president breached his fiduciary duties, so it is appropriate to reflect on the relationship to the advisory profession.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the CFP Board’s website excluded a lot of negative information about CFPs. The Journal’s story shook confidence in the CFP Board’s certification process. It’s a major crisis.
On July 9, for the first time, SEC Chairman Clayton defended Reg BI. Yet, instead of explaining in plain language the meaning of the rulemaking and how it meets reasonable investor expectations, the chairman went after his critics.
July 4 reminds us of how the American experiment started. That stands in startling contrast to the SEC’s experimental standards.
The recent passing of Warren Phillips, who retired as chairman of the Dow Jones Corporation in 1991, reminded me of the deep connection between journalism and fiduciary advice.
The brokerage and insurance industries are lobbying to prevent states, like Maryland, from adopting a fiduciary standard. Those efforts, however, have exposed a series of false claims that belie the immense benefits a fiduciary standard brings to consumers.
Last week two RIA leaders made important remarks illustrating the public’s distrust of financial services. TD Ameritrade’s president and CEO, Tim Hockey, and Pershing Advisor Solutions CEO, Mark Tibergien addressed trust at different forums in different ways.`
The brilliance of Regulation Best Interest is how it sidesteps the 1940 Advisers Act to marginalize fiduciary duties for retail investors. It proclaims a broker suitability-styled standard to be in the best interests of investors. Industry advocates say it’s a strong investor protection rule. It’s not. It’s the opposite.
The SEC has been on a five-month tour gathering feedback on its “Reg BI” proposal from investors through a series of roundtable discussions. The tour has not gone well. Investors everywhere have booed it off the stage. Why?
The Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed new rules for advisors and brokers. The rules purport to clear up investor confusion with new disclosures and raise the standard for brokers. Unfortunately, they lack both the clarity and enforcement muscle to be effective.
The CFP Board set out fiduciary duties for all advice. Its statements are clear and strong. This is an important step. But alone, it falls very short. Why?
The CFP Board proposal on fiduciary duties are a good first step towards a fiduciary standard. Yet, they fall well short of basic fiduciary practices and, equally as important, what ordinary investors clearly want from an investment advisor or financial planner. Significant common sense revisions will align the CFP requirements with true fiduciary practices. Alternatively, the Board can realign its promise to the public to fit its current standards. Webinar attendees will learn:
The “big three” discount brokers use sales incentives to get their advisors to gather assets and push certain products.