Elizabeth Warren’s Frightening 401k Fiduciary Fight

Warren's not happy with White.
Warren alerts the Federal Reserve.

John Edwards takes the cake for political hypocrisy in the modern era, a man who charged an estimated $90,000 per speech on the topic of income inequality that vilified hedge funds for their contribution to the problem. This while he accepted a half-million dollars in consulting fees from hedge fund behemoth Fortress Investment Group.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is a close second. It all began with her dubious claim to Native American ancestry—now debunked— as a ticket to teaching at elite universities.

Today, her Elmer Gantry-like fervor for supposed financial sins masks her own role in such things as student loan debt, in which she was paid $700,000 over a two-year period to teach one class. The windfall came as she collected six-figure sums from two government agencies, one being the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Good work if you can get it …

And then there’s the political vindictiveness. Robert Litan, a former Democrat ally, had the gall last July to question the cost-effectiveness of the DOL’s fiduciary rule. Support it or not, a credible argument against can at least be made. His heresy had him fired from his long-time position with the Brookings Institution, reportedly at the urging of Warren.

And it’s not just with individuals, as her latest request of the SEC shows. Reuters reports the Massachusetts Democrat asked securities regulators on Thursday to investigate comments made by insurance companies about the fiduciary proposal.

Lincoln National, Jackson National Life, Prudential Financial and Transamerica are all in her crosshairs “for publicly stating that the rule …would hurt business while privately telling investors it would not create a major hurdle.”

She wants the SEC to “formally look into whether the statements were contradictory and ran afoul of securities laws.”

If only the companies’ actions were as nefarious as they sound. It appears Warren wants to suppress free speech and criminalize corporate inquiry. Voicing concerns about the impact of new regulation while assuring clients they’ll be able to adapt is hardly the Pentagon Papers. To presuppose legislation might contain unintended consequences is vindicated by recent history (Obamacare, Dodd Frank, you name it). Such confusion is the reason the SEC, FINRA and like agencies feel the need to issue guidance. But raise a red flag at your own risk.

Warren and Labor Secretary Perez will introduce the final rule Wednesday, and a version will in all likelihood be implemented. The momentum has been heading in that direction since the president’s endorsement last year, so one can only speculate on the reason for the recent antics, but a bully’s gotta bully.

It’s more proof of the tyranny of the self-righteous, no matter party, cause or clique.

John Sullivan
+ posts

With more than 20 years serving financial markets, John Sullivan is the former editor-in-chief of Investment Advisor magazine and retirement editor of ThinkAdvisor.com. Sullivan is also the former editor of Boomer Market Advisor and Bank Advisor magazines, and has a background in the insurance and investment industries in addition to his journalism roots.

3 comments
  1. This article is 100% spot on. The answer to the “why” portion is very, very easy. Elizabeth Warren is a politician and her entire world and existence revolves around two fundamental needs … feed her out sized ego and sense of self worth and pander for a vote while curing all of the world’s ills. At the end of the day absolutely nothing of any essential benefit will be accomplished other than giving her a podium and a spot light so that she can continue to suckle from the public teat.

  2. This article had absolutely nothing to say on the actual issue at hand. Nothing on the fiduciary rule, its consequences, implementation, or impact on advisors. Instead it was just a juvenile partisan attack on Elizabeth Warren. Spare me your rhetoric. I don’t have time to waste.

  3. If anyone thinks that the fiduciary ruling (and I own an RIA firm so I am a fiduciary)has anything to do with the consumer I fear that you are hopelessly naive. This entire exercise IS a partisan activity! This is a political grand standing event … not a consumer protection event. The preliminary rules were released this morning and they are a watered down version of what has been anticipated. The full rules do not go into effect until January 2018 and they will likely be further diluted from what was announced today. In the end life and the advisory business will go on relatively unchanged and the politicians will get to say that they “did something and saved the consumer from the horrible nasty people on Wall Street”. We all know the rhetoric and the reason.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts
Total
0
Share