Texas Judge Rules in Favor of Retirees Vs Fiduciary Role

Discussion in 'Retirement Planning Forum' started by Justin Bilyj, Feb 11, 2017.

  1. Justin Bilyj
    Offline

    Justin Bilyj Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,855
    Likes Received:
    4
    State:
    Ohio
    WASHINGTON, DC — The federal district judge’s decision on Wednesday supporting the fiduciary rule in retirement savings will blunt efforts to overturn the Department of Labor’s (DOL) consumer-oriented rule, AARP said today.

    The federal district court in Dallas, Texas rejected every claim made by numerous financial trade groups that retirement advice in the best interest of retirement savers – also known as fiduciary duty – could not be required by DOL. The Texas court firmly supported the fiduciary duty standard and swept away the arguments made by the financial groups.

    This decision is the third by a federal court in recent months agreeing that the DOL can require financial advice for retirement savers to meet a fiduciary standard. No court has ruled otherwise.

    These are significant victories for investors across the country,” said Nancy LeaMond, AARP Executive Vice President. “Retirement savers should be able to get retirement investment advice in their best interest, not the interest of Wall Street.”


    [​IMG]
     
  2. Norwayguy
    Offline

    Norwayguy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    8,770
    Likes Received:
    9
    State:
    Maine
    And when it results in no advice for small investors?
     
  3. nylife11023
    Offline

    nylife11023 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    315
    Likes Received:
    0
    State:
     
    I believe there will be a fiduciary rule that will supplant the suitability rule, but that it will be designed to be a win-win for both the client and the advisor. It will take a year or two, but it will happen.

    No one running in the next midterms wants to run on a platform of "It is OK for your financial advisor to screw you over so I voted against fiduciary legislation."

    With smart and vocal opponents of the current 'system' (one woman who is already running for President) the financial industry will eventually settle on some fiduciary platform that is acceptable to all parties.

    Personally, the vast majority of advisors run their biz or act to their clients as de facto fiduciaries so it won't be as big a deal as the media is making it out to be.

    It is the carriers and BDs that are the opponents of this. Most advisors in the retail sector won't be changing the way they practice.
     
  4. DHK
    Offline

    DHK Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    6,074
    Likes Received:
    14
    State:
    California
    In reality, the fiduciary rule isn't a fiduciary standard. It's an elevated suitability standard. The problem, aside from some of the technicalities of the ruling, is that it is using the TERM 'fiduciary' which will lead to more lawsuits.
     
  5. pcbinsurance
    Offline

    pcbinsurance Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,726
    Likes Received:
    0
    State:
    Florida
    Fake News......(actually it may or may not be fake news---I've always wanted to say "Fake News".)
     
  6. Simon
    Offline

    Simon Member

    Posts:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    State:
     
    Why do people want to remove the fiduciary duty? Because the answer to me seems to be that advisors don't want to suggest investment advice for the best interest of their clients.
     
  7. DHK
    Offline

    DHK Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    6,074
    Likes Received:
    14
    State:
    California
    Read or watch Atlas Shrugged and learn how when you name a bill something how it shifts public sentiment. Atlas Shrugged had three prominent bills - "The Anti-dog-eat-dog" rule, "The Fair Share" law, and "The Equalization of Opportunity" bill. Without reading them, it sounds like you're promoting opportunity for "the public good" when in reality, you're destroying the producers from being able to produce.

    The DOL fiduciary rule has plenty in it that you should READ about first, before passing judgment on it.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 10, 2017
  8. DavidHill76
    Offline

    DavidHill76 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    State:
    Tennessee
    Hey y'all

    Im back with my 7 and 66 and have been hearing a lot about the new DOL ruling within Ed Jones.

    Care to hear about it or am I kicked out?

    Also thinking about going independent so DHK, if you got any advice for me now, I followed your advice before and learned how to door knock
     
  9. DHK
    Offline

    DHK Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    6,074
    Likes Received:
    14
    State:
    California
    An independent what?

    If you're planning on keeping your securities licenses, what is your T-12 GDC? If it's not at least $300k, there would be very few serious independent firms that would consider you - such as LPL, Raymond James, and others.

    Depending on your state, you could go with an insurance company with their broker/dealer. Ohio National and ONESCO would be worth considering. And your insurance production would count towards your GDC production with ONESCO as well. That would probably be your best bet, but I don't recall if TN is a PGA/independent state for Ohio National or not.

    Don't forget that you're supposed to be with EDJ for a minimum of 3 years, or you owe back training costs as high as $75,000 if you sign on with a new brokerage firm. Unless you're failing out or they're letting you go for non-production.
     
  10. Gulfman
    Offline

    Gulfman Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    State:
    Florida
    You sound like you're "wet behind the ears." Read more on this subject before drawing conclusions. Plenty of ppl hear are licensed as Fiduciaries. Its a "hot potato" with the only winners being Litigating attorneys who want to sue anyone they can.
     

Share This Page