- 3,352
DHK: Is there a public link to watch the American College webinar on this?
DOL Executive Order Moves Forward - Affect on Annuity Sales
thatoneguy
New Member
- 1
I couldn't agree more, I have been saying this all along, it is not about protecting consumers. It is about making it more difficult for us to spread the word about all the great things we can do over on this side. Annuities/Life Insurance can change peoples lives, but the government has a very large asset in future revenue from Qualified Funds. It would make sense for them to scapegoat a VA and roll FIA's in together. New mortality expectancies, changing RMD schedules, DOL, hell even changing the tax status of a withdraw from life insurance. These all could change our industry tomorrow.
I also agree it is best practice to justify every action for a client.
Thanks for the insights.
I have my 6, 63 and 65 and have for nearly 20 years. I am really considering this option. Not for VA's, but just to be done with a B/D. I haven't done much research yet, but plan on doing some this year and maybe making the move by the end of the year if it's feasible.
- 11,512
If they send one out, I'll post it.
Ah! It's here:
https://theamericancollege.adobecon...?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal
And you can download the slides here:
http://www.theamericancollege.edu/dol-webcast/pdf/DOL_webcast_deck.pdf
----------
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan just came out with this a couple of days ago:
This One Rule Could Hurt Millions of Middle-Class Savers | Speaker.gov
"Don't be fooled. In reality, this rule would create more paperwork and record-keeping requirements for planners, meaning higher costs for consumers. It would also mean less access and fewer options for small businesses trying to get up and running and families looking for financial advice. According to one independent analysis, up to 7 million current Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) wouldn't qualify for advice under these new standards, and "as a result, individual investors with small-balance accounts likely will lose access to retirement advice and support."
Last edited:
DHK
I was posting earlier but I forgot to post. If you are giving advice to anyone about retirement accounts now, it is a good idea to ask to be added as a receiver of statements, even on accounts you are not controlling. You can find out about unusual transactions. There is a difference between a fiduciary and trustee, so if they want to blow their money and you dont have any evidence their mental capacity has declined, there is really nothing you can do as a fiduciary advisor. On the hand, law is still weak on what to do as a fiduciary if your client of 80 years old marries the 22 year old nurse he met during a routine physical checkup.
I am somewhat surprised NAIFA did not push this hard but if you truly apply the fiduciary standard, most robo advisors, Vanguard and most stock brokers don't have a clue how to plan for long term care and under a true fiduciary standard, failure to plan/advise for a LTC situation would be a clear breach. Do I think DOL would go after anyone for that. Most likely not. DOL is pushing this regulation because there is a strong belief that the current system is not working. State by state regulation of annuity sales has not worked well.
I have seen many abuses of the suitability standard at NYL, even when clients complained about it, the management turned a blind eye. The proposed law is better for many of the variable annuity sales abuses, but it is not perfect. I am happy to see it pass. Had FINRA, SEC and to some extent NAIFA done their job, there would be no opportunity for DOL to go in.
I was posting earlier but I forgot to post. If you are giving advice to anyone about retirement accounts now, it is a good idea to ask to be added as a receiver of statements, even on accounts you are not controlling. You can find out about unusual transactions. There is a difference between a fiduciary and trustee, so if they want to blow their money and you dont have any evidence their mental capacity has declined, there is really nothing you can do as a fiduciary advisor. On the hand, law is still weak on what to do as a fiduciary if your client of 80 years old marries the 22 year old nurse he met during a routine physical checkup.
I am somewhat surprised NAIFA did not push this hard but if you truly apply the fiduciary standard, most robo advisors, Vanguard and most stock brokers don't have a clue how to plan for long term care and under a true fiduciary standard, failure to plan/advise for a LTC situation would be a clear breach. Do I think DOL would go after anyone for that. Most likely not. DOL is pushing this regulation because there is a strong belief that the current system is not working. State by state regulation of annuity sales has not worked well.
I have seen many abuses of the suitability standard at NYL, even when clients complained about it, the management turned a blind eye. The proposed law is better for many of the variable annuity sales abuses, but it is not perfect. I am happy to see it pass. Had FINRA, SEC and to some extent NAIFA done their job, there would be no opportunity for DOL to go in.
I think the 4 "too big to fail" banks are also a huge factor in trying to get this pushed through. They want to be able to pay someone $40K a year to get clients into a fee based robo-advisor platform so they can control even more of the country's wealth. It's a sham all around, and will have disastrous consequences for the low and middle class if enacted exactly as proposed.
That's exactly what it is, but this won't help the imaginary cause of the loss of standard of living. Next stop after that will be mandatory % investment in US Treasuries aka the confiscation of retirement assets.
FYI Citibank is against the DOL proposal, where as Bank of America supports it. Vanguard was for it and now they want some changes. Insurance companies selling annuities, independent broker dealers are against it. Fee only advisors are for it.
It is an outstanding proposal for the low and middle class. They will save billions in fees. If Hillary or Trump become president, it will likely survive a future supreme court challenge too. Since the DOL ruling is likely to end up at Supreme Court in the next few years, this is where if today republicans could agree to a Business friendly, pro choice nominee, they could possibly stall this law. I doubt that is going to happen.
