Cooler heads will prevail (hopefully). USA Today seems to have missed the memo that pretty much everyone dislikes the DOL’s fiduciary rule and is hoping for any kind of viable alternative. The paper rehashed elementary talking points in its popular “Our View” op-ed series on Sunday arguing for the rule’s passage and adoption.
Thankfully, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association president Kenneth Bentsen took up the 401(k) flag and delivered a measured condemnation of the proposal in its current form.
Arguing the “opposing view,” Bentsen reiterated that the proposal would make retirement more costly and confusing for the majority of Americans.
While noting the industry’s history of support for a uniform standard of care and similar measures, he added that “[SIFMA] believes that DOL’s approach will do more harm than good. It is too complex and convoluted to work as proposed. If it becomes final without further review and input, it will harm the very people it purports to help.”
The USA Today editorial board, for its part, went all the way back to Gerald Ford and the passing of ERISA in 1975 to argue its point. Following PBS and similar outfits in describing of the present day retirement system as a “racket,” the paper mentions hidden fees and conflicts-of-interest in arguing for DOL fiduciary support.
“Not surprisingly, there is considerable pushback from the [advisors] who’d lose this money,” the editors claim in less than magnanimous fashion. “They’ve formed groups with names such as the ‘Coalition to Protect Retirement Security and Choice’ and ‘Americans to Protect Family Security’ that have been airing alarmist and specious ads about how the new rule would limit consumer choice and lead to higher costs.
“What these groups are really trying to protect is their fat fees,” the paper huffs, before concluding, “It’s impossible to see how investors would pay more in a world when all [advisors] would have to operate in investors’ best interests.”
If it’s “impossible to see” how added regulation will increase cost and complexity, we’re not sure who’s in more trouble—the 401(k) industry, or mainstream media outlets that purport to protect the interests of retirees.