For those advocating that a fiduciary rule is invariably “good,” we would ask by whose rules and which methods? Remember the two people in government most responsible for the financial crisis—Chris Dodd and Barney Frank—gave us its supposed cure, arguing we need people like them to save us from people like them.
Frank once argued for an increase in financial sector regulation while decrying the need for military spending in the wake of Chinese aggression, the inference being he trusts the Communist Party of China more than the ingenuity of the American businessman.
It jibes with the current administration’s absurd attitude that any regulation is good regulation, which is best reflected in the recently implemented and successfully challenged “EPA Rule.” Note that it’s not referred to as the EPA Law or EPA Act, as it would never have passed congressional muster. The administration’s own cost/benefit analysis reflected $600 million in benefits for $9 billion in costs. I’m sure anyone would take $600 free and clear, until it was revealed they must first pay $9,000. Such is the surreal nature of Washington math.
The Wall Street Journal reports President Obama’s regulators have completed their 600th major rule.
“A major rule imposes costs of more than $100 million,” the paper notes, before sarcastically adding, “For those keeping score, that’s an average of 81 big ones a year, or roughly one every three days the government is open. Who says our bureaucracies are inefficient?”
The Journal cites number compiled by the American Action Forum, which calculates that the economic costs add up to $743 billion, and then offers some comparisons; “743 billion is larger than the GDP of Norway and Israel combined, and it amounts to a regulatory tax of $2,294 on every American. This eventually shows up in higher prices, or fewer jobs created, or reduced profits and wages.”
Which is a (the?) major reason for the historically slow economic recovery.
It concludes with a recap of new rules issued in just the past few months, including the reason we’re all here, the fiduciary rule for retirement savings ($31.5 billion).
So once again, by whose rules? Which methods?
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.
The only logical voice in the media on the topic. Thank you John. I’d like to see a little more heat on “professionals” who are in bed with an agency which is clearly seeking to introduce regulatory capture to the new robos. There was no connection with the robos to fiduciary, and yet, who did the DOL praise? They seem all too willing to play the game as well, and no one points out the harm that will do to the industry and investors.