Federal Court Shit Canned Another Obama Legacy (Rule)

SUMMARY FROM VARIOUS NEWS ARTICLES

Federal court tosses out Obama-era rule requiring financial advisers to act in customers' best interests.

In a 2-1 ruling, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals said the fiduciary rule bears the hallmarks of "unreasonableness" and constitutes an arbitrary and capricious exercise of administrative power.

The lawsuit stems from a challenge the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and eight other business and financial groups brought against the rule.

The groups argued the DOL erased universally recognized distinctions between salespeople and fiduciary advisers and reconfigured relationships among financial and insurance representatives and their customers in setting the new standards of conduct.

Comments

  • I believe the term fiduciary is legally protected whereas financial adviser is not. (Like how the term clinical psychologist means you are licensed and certified whereas anyone can call themselves a psychotherapist, which means nothing--or like how the term dietician means you are licensed and certified whereas anyone can say that they're a nutritionist). By extension, a financial adviser was never obligated to act in a customer's best interest whereas a fiduciary is. Or was?

    If you can't be guaranteed a fiduciary will serve your best interests, why even bother seeking one in the first place? I can't see how this benefits anyone but charlatans.
Sign In or Register to comment.