Elizabeth Warren’s Shameful Fiduciary Rule Shakedown

This guy’s coming to ‘inquire’ about your fiduciary practices.
This guy’s coming to ‘inquire’ about your fiduciary practices.

Elizabeth Warren couldn’t be further from a Cagney/Coppola-style capo, but only in physical appearance. Her tactics are quite similar, as in “nice car, shame if something happened to it.”

The Massachusetts senator and liberal gadfly has a passive-aggressive habit of curiously wondering what financial services companies might be thinking and doing about a particular piece of legislation she supports, and sending letters to inquire.

The inference is classic La Cosa Nostra—get in line, or else. Scary when it’s a common street hoodlum, absolutely terrifying with the full weight of the United States Government.

The latest is her letter to 33 companies with direct ties to the 401(k) space, including Schwab, LPL Financial, TD Ameritrade and others.

She simply asked if “they support delaying the regulation and if they would roll back their already-announced plans if the rule’s implementation is pushed back.”

Any guesses on their answers?

She was a bit more aggressive than passive in her last go round when, in April, she again “asked” the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate comments made by companies about the fiduciary proposal.

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

She requested the commission “formally look into whether the statements were contradictory and ran afoul of securities laws.”

Nothing much came of it, and lo and behold SEC commissioner Mary Jo White then became the target of Warren’s ire, with a request of President Obama to fire White as chair.

Nothing came of that as well, but we think we see a pattern, and maybe that’s the point—establish a consistent anti-corporate record to capitalize on the next political pendulum swing.

“Given these positive changes in the market, any efforts to roll-back these new protections will be devastating to consumers,” Warren wrote in the latest letter. “In addition to undermining Americans’ newfound confidence in their investment advisers, it could result in immediate price increases and the return of dangerous commission-based sales incentives that benefit the advisers’ bottom lines, but drain away consumers’ savings.”

“Undermining Americans’ newfound confidence …,” given her record, it takes some chutzpah to write a line like that.

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.

5 comments
  1. What a hypocrite John. Nice attack article. Who pays you to write such garbage. She is one of the only people fighting for the protection of investors from the predatory practices currently in place. Who would have thought that the idea that you place your clients best interest before your own as advisor was such a difficult concept to grasp. Perhaps your clients (if you are an advisor and not just a hack writer) would like to know why you are over charging them.

  2. Warren implied that DeVos was not qualified to be Education secretary because she has never been a teacher, a parent of public education child or had to get a student loan. With that as construct to her qualifications, she has never had a series 7 license, insurance license, has never been a financial advisor therefore she is not qualified to make any rules on the contract between a financial advisor and the client. The DOL rule is vague in the reasonable compensation rule, lawyers in personal injury earn 30% of the settlement and when the case is over they have no responsibility for the client. An advisor may live off less than 1% Gross pay and is responsible for that client in their on going pursuit of their goals.

  3. Amazing that you slant this so much. Congress people ROUTINELY ask questions, and the one she asked was completely BENIGN. I mean, what is wrong with asking: “they support delaying the regulation and if they would roll back their already-announced plans if the rule’s implementation is pushed back.” If they sent that to the company I work for (a 401(k) recordkeeper with over $50 billion in retirement plan assets) the answer would have been: Some delay would be helpful as the rule is complex, but we do NOT support it’s repeal and believe IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. For decades, SALES PEOPLE have been branding their SALES PITCHES as ADVICE – and nothing could be further from the truth. REQUIRING them to actually consider their clients’ best interest is so intuitive that any disagreement with that premise is just inane.

Comments are closed.

Related Posts
Total
0
Share