Michael Kitces (@MichaelKitces), leading voice in the financial advisory industry, recently featured our MarketWatch op/ed in his recommended weekend reading and in a tweet.
Many people throughout the industry are still unclear as to how the fiduciary rule should be implemented. This uncertainty, at least In part, is behind many industry groups working hard to delay—or even scrap entirely—its implementation.
Our op/ed was published recently in MarketWatch. The article explained why the Labor Department still has to define the hardest part of the new fiduciary rule.
The Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule is under fire again. Essentially, those opposing the rule are saying that fulfilling a fiduciary standard—acting in the best interests of their clients—is too costly to work with their business model.
Clients are more educated than ever. There is more transparency into advisory practices than ever. It’s going to be awfully hard for advisors to win new business if they cannot tell clients they will act in the clients’ best interests.
We think investors’ expectation for the fiduciary standard is here to stay no matter what the official rules say -- and those investors will increasingly demand that their advisers apply to their non-retirement accounts too.
On 11/22/16 our op-ed article was published at WealthManagement. The op-ed explains what it means to be a fiduciary, the conflicts within sell-side research, and how advisors fulfill fiduciary responsibilities going forward.
Our op-ed article was published at Marketwatch recently. The article explains why the Labor Department's fiduciary rule is here to stay and how advisors can fulfill fiduciary responsibilities going forward.