August 3, 2010
I believe moving forward with the Fiduciary Responsibility Rules as proposed would not be prudent. The primary reason is the strict definition of Fiduciary and how that may not even be possible to uphold. We operate under a suitability guideline so we are making recommendations that are suitable for our clients and in our clients best interests. I feel this is appropriate. My fear of adopting the Fiduciary Rules is that it could lead to a host of unwarrented law suits. If an advisor makes an appropriate recommendation based on the information available, and circumstances change, then technically that advisor is no longer working in the clients best interest. Of course changes will be made to update the recommendation, but if a day goes by has the Fiduciary responsibility be broken? How about a week, a month or six months? It seems that in our litigation happy society this would be creating a target on the back of every advisor if a client or client's heir wanted to try to line their pockets with easy money obtained through a legal battle. I know it sounds right saying advisors have a Fiduciary responsibility and I believe they do. My fear is that setting these rules will not change how advisors are working with their clients. They are already doing the right things. It will just set the ground work for people looking to "play the system" for potential illegitimate financial gain.