Dave Ramsey the financial author, radio host, television personality, and motivational speaker, recently publicly criticized the proposed Fiduciary rule by the Department of Labor (DOL). Ramsey posted on Twitter “This Obama rule will kill the middle class and below['s] ability to access personal advice.”
To read the article from Investment News go to http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160223/FREE/160229982/adviser-twitter-fight-erupts-when-dave-ramsey-bashes-dol-fiduciary.
I think it is simply ridiculous to suggest that if all “financial advisors” were fiduciaries and required to act in the best interests of their clients and disclose all conflicts of interest that would somehow hurt middle class access to financial advice. While I am a fee-only advisor and prefer the model of full disclosure of compensation I do not think commissions are inherently bad. I don’t see anything wrong with selling financial products as long as all compensation, direct and indirect, are fully disclosed so that the client can make an informed decision. Therefore I see no reason why a commission based advisor could not put their clients interest first.
To suggest a fiduciary standard for all advisors would hurt access for middle class investors is like saying doctors who take the Hippocratic Oath (“…With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage…”) would reduce access to doctors by the middle class and the poor. Absolutely Not! This would be akin to doctors who do serve middle class and the poor not having to act in the best interests of their patients based on their judgement, etc. The idea is simply nonsense and I agree with (probably) most who have criticized Dave Ramsey in that those who are against this are so because they have a vested interest in not being required to put their clients’ interests first.
My view might be different in that I don’t think all “financial advisors” should be held to a fiduciary standard, rather that all advisors of any kind should be required to disclose all compensation, direct and indirect, as well as all conflicts of interest so that if the client wants to work with that broker/salesperson and buy their products they can at least make an informed decision. I personally might still choose to purchase a commission based product from a salesperson if they disclosed that they are not required to act in my best interest because I may feel that purchase is in my best interest and as long as I’m aware of that I can make a fully informed decision. For example if I go to buy a car the salesperson is not required to act in my best interest but as long as I have all the information I need (research on the car, truth in lending, etc) I can make a fully informed decision.
So I don’t think applying a fiduciary standard to all “advisors” will fix the problems in the industry nor do I think getting rid of all commission products will either. Rather if we had simple common sense regulations that require the full and clear disclosure on compensation, direct and indirect, as well as conflicts of interest in a manner that is understandable to the clients then we’d make some progress towards protecting the public and people could then choose who they want to work with.