The eruption over Trump’s immigration EO has the nation’s refugee policy, airports and cabinet picks in complete chaos. Connecticut senator and Warren mini-me Chris Murphy called on colleagues Sunday to “force a debate” on the president’s action by “slowing consideration of all of his remaining cabinet nominees.”
It has us wondering if outrage as opportunity was part of the plan all along. If so, it’s a pretty cynical use of people as political pawns, but certainly not unprecedented.
The fiduciary rule was a lock, but then it wasn’t, but then it was. It was so far down the road that stopping it was near-impossible without an act of Congress. Then it seemed more likely to be repealed, prompting Democratic senators to throw some weight and rally the troops, but then stories appeared about fiduciary proponents increasingly demoralized …and on and on.
Now? The president signed (yet another) executive order on Monday, this time to slash regulations. It requires agencies to cut two existing regulations for every new one introduced. We’re about to see how important the fiduciary rule really was to the DOL.
The delay of DOL pick Andy Puzder’s confirmation hearing, for the third time, throws another wrench, and has us thinking he’s the Trump Administration’s sacrificial lamb (although anonymous sources say he’s ready to bail). Every administration has them; Clinton and Zoe Baird, George W and Linda Chavez, Obama and Tom Daschle, among many others.
As The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel noted, Trump was on track for a perfect 8 – 0 run with a strong possibility of getting all his most controversial nominees through (including Betsy DeVos) due to a Democrat lack of discipline, and thus concentration, on one or two specific targets.
That was then, and Murphy’s statement (slip?) seems to have given away the game which, if true, is unfortunate, and would pretty much confirm every worst fear about politics we’ve ever possessed.
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.
This article is partisan and disrespectful. I have asked to be unsubscribed.
Whether you like to DOL rule or not, your remarks about Warren and others are really obnoxious. But your smug politics overshadows an important issue.
I have been a successful FA and a CFP for over 30 years, and I welcome debate on these things. The article tells nothing new, but is a showcase for anti-Democratic garbage. There is some client-centric reason for the rule. You offer nothing to fine tune it, just a partisan Warren-bashing. You may not like her delivery, but her ardor for doing the right thing could be an example for you.
I’m interested in information about DC investments, strategies, business plans etc. I am not interested in some snarky editorial from 401k specialist mag.
As far as I can tell, this is a one-off. If so, cut it out. If not, let me know, and I will be happy to remove myself from the list.
This is the second time in about a week you’ve delivered a political message devoid of facts. It seems you are a shill for the sales industry, rather than the advice industry that the 401(k) industry should be. Here’s a clue: it’s about doing the right thing for the client, even if it’s not as profitable. It’s called integrity, something you seem to be lacking.
I agree with the comments of Cathy Del Nero above, this was a low point for the 401k Specialist blog/newsletter. It’s a partisan diatribe articulating a conflict of interest viewpoint , and does so badly. There are a lot of issues with the DOL regulations but this scatterbrained article uses a “Disgusting Dems” headlines and then veers to unrelated Trump appointees with no connection. When I subscribed I was hoping for fresh viewpoints on 401k related business issues, not a Fox/Brietbart commentary. I suggest your sponsors reconsider their spend here.
I will also unsubscribe.
Ms. Del Nero is perfectly on point with her comment. How about keeping your right-wing dogma to your selves, and present useful information to your readers.
I believe this is an opinion piece. Does it not say so in the headline? Some of you sound like a bunch of snowflakes in need of a safe place. As for me I find the author’s perspective refreshing. It’s long past time that more people in this industry realize that rule by bureaucracy is just another form of tyranny. Whether you agree with the DOL rule of not is immaterial. What is material is that the rule was made. The entire paradigm of allowing government agencies to make decrees that have the force of law needs to end. Keep up the good work Mr. Sullivan. Please continue to tell it like you see it.
If you are going to bash anyone, can you at least write something worth reading? This piece was not worth reading and makes me wonder whether the author’s primary motive was just to hear his own voice.
The intent of the DOL fiduciary rule…aka conflict of interest rule…was to protect retirement savers from unscrupulous financial adivsors. As a independent investment advisor who works directly for clients…not the retirement industry or the mutual fund industry…I welcome the fiduciary rule. It is very telling of the level of conflict of interest in this field due to all of the pending lawsuits filed against companies like Edward Jones, Raymond James, etc…etc..
Nope… The rule is the latest attempt in a long line of regulations to eliminate competition. You can’t eliminate conflict of interest unless the advisor is going to work for free and even then personal biases and opinions will get in the way. The best the advisor can do is try to understand the client’s facts and circumstances and proceed accordingly but even then the advisor can’t act in the client’s best interest because of the knowledge problem (see F.A. Hayek). The truth is only the client can act in their own best interest. The fiduciary rule bestows a fake/fraudalant sense of security to the public while (surprise! surprise!) working to protect the interests of the politically favored players in the industry. The end game is the elimination of the independent financial advisor and an industry dominated by few huge firms who can at least initially handle the ever-increasing regulatory costs and the enormous liability exposure. In that grim scenario advisors will be employees ladling out the gruel that passes for government approved (lawsuit immune) planning that the public doesn’t want… at a price they can’t afford, yet they must purchase anyway. See what has happened to the health insurance industry for the template. Our entire industry needs to quit being patsies for the bad guys while masquerading as protectors of the “public interest.” I’m still waiting for a bureaucrat to suggest a real fiduciary rule to be applied uniformly to all politicians and bureaucrats because if that ever happened they would have to all go away for good. It appears that Mr. Trump has delayed the rule so strike one for the good guys!