Skip Navigation

Banks and congress say no to being a fiduciary

Started by Riversider
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 13572
Member since: Apr 2009
Discussion about
When financial reform legislation finally lands on the Senate floor, a provision that advocates call the single most important item for Main Street investors will probably have been banished from the ponderous bill. That provision -- a requirement for stock brokers and insurance agents to act in the best interest of their clients -- was part of a 1,100-page draft bill unveiled by Senate banking... [more]
Response by Riversider
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 13572
Member since: Apr 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/06/AR2010030602078.html

As it stands now, investment advisers are required to act as "fiduciaries," legally and ethically bound to put a client's interest ahead of their own. In comparison, brokers are required to have "reasonable grounds" to believe that a product they are recommending is "suitable" for the customer. Typically, brokers do not have to make as many disclosures about conflicts of interest, fees and past infractions as investment advisers.

The different standards exist because the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 makes an exemption that spares brokers from registering as advisers as long as the advice provided to clients is "solely incidental" to selling products.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by somewhereelse
almost 16 years ago
Posts: 7435
Member since: Oct 2009

The worst part is, folks don't KNOW that brokers are allowed to work against them.

There was some idiot on this board arguing this with me a few weeks ago, saying brokers had fiduciary duty. And add in the people who don't even know what "fiduciary" means.

Ignored comment. Unhide

Add Your Comment