A shift in culture for investment advisers is overtaking regulatory reform in scope and significance
The fiduciary standard is all about serving the best interests of investors
“Well done is better than well said,” was Benjamin Franklin's wisdom on accountability
Without the unequivocal support of all the members of the Securities and Ex-change Commission, just how much can we learn about the future direction of the regulation of investment advice from the two SEC studies that were released last month?
Last month, the Department of Labor proposed to expand the definition of the term “fiduciary” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
At this time of year, investment stewards — retirement plan sponsors, and managers and trustees of charitable organization investment committees — are receiving 2010 year-end investment performance reports and poring over them to prepare for their first 2011 meetings with their advisers and money managers
For some time now, there has been a net outflow of advisers from broker-dealers to investment advisory firms
During the busy fall conference season for financial professionals, virtually every agenda includes coverage of issues associated with regulatory reform and the extension of the fiduciary standard to brokers and dealers who provide advice to retail investors
As required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission has begun a six-month study of the regulation of brokers under the fair-dealing standard and advisers under the fiduciary standard.
While getting pilloried in hearings before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, representatives from The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. characterized their firm as a market maker, denied that they had fiduciary status, and displayed apparent bewilderment at the senators' questions about legal or ethical obligations to place clients' interests first.
