Updated Sunday, September 14, 2014 as of 10:04 PM ET

Could Feds Kill DoL Fiduciary Regulation?

WASHINGTON -- Has the debate around the Department of Labor's fiduciary proposal become so heated that the administration will shelve the controversial proposal?

Get access to this article and thousands more...

All On Wall Street articles are archived after 7 days. REGISTER NOW for unlimited access to all recently archived articles, as well as thousands of searchable stories. Registered Members also gain access to exclusive industry white paper downloads, web seminars, blog discussions, the iPad App, CE Exams, and conference discounts. Qualified members may also choose to receive our free monthly magazine and any of our daily or weekly e-newsletters covering the latest breaking news, opinions from industry leaders, developing trends and growth strategies.

Already Registered?

Comments (6)
We are an industry already over regulated; there have been laws on the books for decades to protect consumers. Full free market deregulation would truly ensure investor protection.
Posted by Kirby L | Thursday, July 03 2014 at 11:22AM ET
Nice article, but you should consider explaining to the reader the actual details of the proposed fiduciary plan before you talk about who supports it and ramifications. Editorship 101.
Posted by Richard R | Thursday, July 03 2014 at 1:41PM ET
Only big Broker Dealers and Insurance Companies don't want a uniform fiduciary standard because they would not be able to "maximize" their profits at the expense of investors/employees. The uniform fiduciary standard will probably never pass, even though it is the right thing to do for the average investor/employee, because all of the big money is against it and the average citizen of this country has no idea what it all means.

It is sad that our country's government has come to represent the best interests of those with the most money and not the majority of the citizens it claims to represent; we did win our independence from the old European imperialists but we will probably never be truly free from the cycle of plutocracy.
Posted by William R | Thursday, July 03 2014 at 1:49PM ET
I agree with you William R. The I'll-take-my-ball-home attitude of the brokerage community is embarrassing at best. As if they can't make a living without lying to the public. Elizabeth Warren is one of a stark minority of intelligent persons making sense of the issue.
Posted by Gary D | Friday, July 04 2014 at 1:47PM ET
The worst part of the original proposal was seemingly forcing 401 plan participants into the more expensive asset management (fee only) basis which is the opposite of fiduciary responsibility. Obviously fee only is the most expensive way to get investment advice if not an active trader. Mathematically a 1% annual fee over 10 years is equivalent to a 9.1% front end load on an A share. If the value increases the annual fees based on value become quickly more expensive than using A shares with breakpoints.

NY AG long ago took action reflecting this high fee of asset management fee only accounts again if not an active trader saving commissions on frequent trades. I have never had a 401K that has frequent trading.
Posted by Dave H | Saturday, July 05 2014 at 12:19AM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.

Already a subscriber? Log in here