Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Mr. Sparkle

(2,932 posts)
Mon Mar 19, 2018, 04:04 PM Mar 2018

Labor Department won't enforce investor protection rule(Fiduciary rule) after court decision

Source: CNBC

The Labor Department's decision to put enforcement of the fiduciary rule on hold adds to the uncertainty of the measure's future. Regardless of what happens, retirement savers should be sure to carefully vet their financial advisor and understand exactly how they are paid.

Federal regulators for now are backing off enforcement of an Obama-era rule intended to protect retirement savers. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on March 15 that the Labor Department overstepped its authority by creating the so-called fiduciary rule, parts of which went into effect last year. In general, the rule requires advisors and brokers to put their clients' interests before their own when advising on retirement accounts such as 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts.

"Pending further review, the [Labor Department] will not be enforcing the 2016 fiduciary rule," an agency spokesman said in a statement to CNBC. The department's decision affects all advisors nationwide who have been subject to the rule, not just those who work in the area of the country that the appeals court has jurisdiction over — Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana.


Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/dol-shelving-enforcement-of-fiduciary-rule-after-court-decision.html

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Labor Department won't enforce investor protection rule(Fiduciary rule) after court decision (Original Post) Mr. Sparkle Mar 2018 OP
screw the people Angry Dragon Mar 2018 #1
exactly. barbtries Mar 2018 #2
++++ agree and line the pockets of the top x% iluvtennis Mar 2018 #5
and get a second opinion. DAMN! elleng Mar 2018 #3
5th Circuit Court of Appeals Igel Mar 2018 #7
Hopefully once our guys retake the House and Senate they can rewrite the rule in such a way that cstanleytech Mar 2018 #4
Fee-based is better, IMHO, anyway The Mouth Mar 2018 #6

barbtries

(28,793 posts)
2. exactly.
Mon Mar 19, 2018, 04:15 PM
Mar 2018

their greed is boundless and it seems they are not bright enough to get that when it all goes theirs goes too.

cstanleytech

(26,291 posts)
4. Hopefully once our guys retake the House and Senate they can rewrite the rule in such a way that
Mon Mar 19, 2018, 04:22 PM
Mar 2018

the court will not throw it out.

The Mouth

(3,150 posts)
6. Fee-based is better, IMHO, anyway
Mon Mar 19, 2018, 04:35 PM
Mar 2018

How can somebody *not* be biased if they get commissions on the products they advise you to buy. Paying a flat fee upfront can be money well spent in the long run (assuming competence on the part of the advisor).

Pretty shitty, though, to not require fiduciary duty.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Labor Department won't en...