Do You Like the Dept of Labor Fiduciary Rule?

[racy]

..if so contact your Representative and Senators: https://www.congress.gov/
It's under attack by the moneyed Wall Street interests. 

(Hopefully, I'm not repeating something already posted; my search turned up nothing on the subject)

[MustacheAndaHalf]

An executive order has already delayed it, and a majority in Congress are drooling over it's demise... but you're right, if people complain they want to be placed first as clients, Congress can shrink back.

Essentially Wall Street wants to consume excessive amounts of retirement money, and this rule would make that practice illegal.  Wall Street argues it will cost too much to put clients first.

[AdrianC]

It doesn't affect any of us, right?

If anyone needs a financial planner they can find one that already acts as a fiduciary, e.g.:

https://www.ifa.com/

It's an expensive way to invest, though.

[aboatguy]

I believe the fiduciary rule would help many of the uniformed keep more of their money.  However, I don't have any skin in this game IE it will not affect me at all!

[msilenus]

I manage my own money.

I don't care if excess fees erode and consume the retirement savings of decent hard-working people who are skilled in their respective areas, but who are not interested in understanding investing personally.

I believe that the retirement insecurity of Americans broadly will never have any impact on me.

[VoteCthulu]

It's certainly well intentioned, but I have my doubts it would have had much real effect. Another idea might be to advertise where to download a fiduciary pledge and tell people to simply never deal with any financial advisor that doesn't sign it.

[AdrianC]

I don't care if excess fees erode and consume the retirement savings of decent hard-working people who are skilled in their respective areas, but who are not interested in understanding investing personally.

I believe that the retirement insecurity of Americans broadly will never have any impact on me.

Sarcasm and hyperbole. I get it.

So which is best, a non-fiduciary that sells you some active mutual funds with a 5% load, or a fiduciary that puts you into passive no-load funds and charges 1% on every dime you have invested with them?

False dichotomy, of course. It's better to buy one of these, if you can stick with it:

https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/all-in-one-funds

[Indexer]

It would look much better as an SEC rule for all brokers instead of just a DOL rule for retirement accounts.

In short: take the Fiduciary rule under the SEC that applies to Registered Investment Representatives and apply that to Brokers & Agents of brokers.

I think that was the initial goal. That is what makes sense. However, lobbyists would fight it too the end. It would flip the nasty side of the industry on its head. All of the less than qualified people who are giving advice(but shouldn't be) would be out of a job. I think the objective of the DOL rule was to move in that direction, but in a way that was slow enough that companies could adapt over time.

I agree full Fiduciary by SEC standards is the gold standard. The DOL rule is a move in that direction.

[katsiki]

Is it true that DOL has no enforcement arm or mechanism to enforce the rule?

[Reynold]

The down side to the fiduciary rule is that if it goes into effect, people without much assets to invest won't be profitable clients, and won't get any kind of investment advice.   That doesn't mean, by the way, that they will put it all into index funds instead, the kind of people who are so reliant on advisers that they don't know they are being scammed don't know an index fund from a hole in the ground.  I have known many people who literally have no idea how one would buy a stock, or a mutual fund, or what the difference is. 

Is the current system, with most financial advisers probably giving ok but not ideal advice because they get commissions, better or worse for the long term financial health of most people?  I don't know of anyone who has analyzed it thoroughly, but I think there would be losers as well as winners if the fiduciary rule goes into effect. 

[RangerOne]

The down side to the fiduciary rule is that if it goes into effect, people without much assets to invest won't be profitable clients, and won't get any kind of investment advice.   That doesn't mean, by the way, that they will put it all into index funds instead, the kind of people who are so reliant on advisers that they don't know they are being scammed don't know an index fund from a hole in the ground.  I have known many people who literally have no idea how one would buy a stock, or a mutual fund, or what the difference is. 

Is the current system, with most financial advisers probably giving ok but not ideal advice because they get commissions, better or worse for the long term financial health of most people?  I don't know of anyone who has analyzed it thoroughly, but I think there would be losers as well as winners if the fiduciary rule goes into effect.

Honestly many people don't get much in the way of investment advice already. The resources are often there, but in general if you don't ask or look it up yourself no one will ever tell you what to do...

This may be a situation where no advice is better than assholes giving terrible advice to rob the average Joe of any returns they would see on their limited assets.

With how much questionable investing ideas I see even around a group of engineers who all max out their 401k's and IRAs, I am terrified to see how people in this country will grapple with retirement once we start seeing the first wave of people with no pension to fall back on.

That shit is only like 10 years away.