Displaying items by tag: advisors

(Washington)

Advisors all across the country see a major flaw in the SEC rule. Fiduciaries feel they are being completely short-changed by the rule because the way the SEC has drafted it makes advisors and brokers look like identical twins, almost eliminating the distinction from a client’s perspective, according to the “Raise Your Voice” campaign, or a group of advisors pushing against the rule. “The proposed rules depict broker and advisers as essentially the same, like identical twins, but without identical investor protections”, says the spearhead of the campaign, continuing that “The legal, contractual, business and cultural differences dividing brokers and advisers are important and must be clearly stated and explained”. The campaign is encouraging advisors to make their opinions heard while the SEC comment period is open (it closes August 7th).

FINSUM: The SEC tried to make a rule that avoided over-delineating things as part of an effort to avoid loopholes, but this non-standard approach has made many quite angry. We suspect the rule will be edited significantly.

(New York)

Advisors (or advisers) look out, your titles are poised to be taken away by the SEC. While much of the focus on the new SEC best interest rule has understandably been centered around its pseudo-fiduciary components, there is actually a major fight brewing over the SEC’s new rules which restrict the use of certain titles. In particular, it wants to bar brokers from using the word “advisor” and potentially “financial planner” as well. The idea is to only associate the word “advisor” with a fiduciary to make it clearer to consumers. Industry interest groups are already railing against the proposal.

FINSUM: We find this a complicated issue. We understand the fiduciary motivation here, but advisors have been using that title for a long time and, for better or worse, are known that way by the public. Further, a fee structure does not, in our view, change whether someone is an advisor (in the general sense of the word).

(Washington)

Advisors all over the country are wondering about a simple question—why the SEC did not use the word “fiduciary” in its new best interest rule. The answer to the question had remained obscure until this week, when SEC chairman Clayton answered it at a conference following a question by FINRA CEO Robert Cook. Clayton said that the new rule is “definitely a fiduciary principle, just like the fiduciary duty in the investment advisor space is a fiduciary principle”, but continuing that calling standards for both brokers and advisors “fiduciary” and “then defining them would not make it clear that the relationship models were different”.

FINSUM: So basically the SEC avoided using the word so as not to muddle the difference between the relationships of brokers to clients vis-a-vis advisors to clients.

(New York)

One of the main mistakes that retirees make is that they underestimate the amount of money they will need for spending in retirement. Accordingly, one of the main jobs of financial advisors is to adjust their thinking on this and make sure that does not happen. Here are some of the reasons people underestimate what they will need. They discount the likelihood of needing to help family members who might get into a precarious financial situation, or even paying for things like weddings. Retirees also forget to budget for one-time big ticket items, even though they are mostly predictable, such as a new car or a new roof. People also underestimate how much more they spend on entertainment, as they will have a great deal more time. Healthcare is also chronically underestimated.

FINSUM: While advisors deal with this frequently, it is never a bad idea to revisit the key “problem” areas.

(New York)

No, the headline above is not a joke, though it may look like one to some. While it is easy to joke about people leaving millions to their dogs, the reality is that setting aside a portion of inheritance to take care of a pet is increasingly common, and advisors need to be aware. 44% of pet owners have some financial plan in their will for the care of pets, with the structure usually being that money would go to a designated caregiver. One advisor in Boca Raton who handles pet planning says “If you care about them and you want to make sure they’re taken care of, you have to have a contingency plan for them or else they end up at the Humane Society”.

FINSUM: 44% is a huge number, but it does make a lot of sense. Pets are valued family members and it seems irresponsible to many to leave them without care.