It should surprise no one that the biggest winners so far in the Trump administration are those who hold stock in America’s largest banks. Bank stocks soared on the news last week that the new president was serious about rolling back financial regulations put in place after the economic meltdown of 2008. According to Fortune, the top 7 bank stocks added some $35 billion in market capitalization on the news that “Dodd-Frank” was really going to be put on the chopping block. Investors are betting that happy times are here again for Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, etc. If you hold these stocks in your Stocktrades portfolio, good for you. If you are an executive with a lot of shares, very, very good for you.
But what does this rollback mean for everyone else’s money? The folks at Credit.com asked me to answer that question, and my story is below. But a quick summary: it’s too soon to say what any changes to Dodd-Frank might mean. Here’s a hint, though: I’m discussing an update to my 10-year-old book Gotcha Capitalism, in light of recent events. On the other hand, the specific news of Friday — likely suspension of a coming rule requiring financial advisers put their clients’ best interests first — comes with clear consequences. Here’s the story:
An executive memorandum signed by President Donald Trump on Feb. 3 is aimed at consumers’ retirement accounts and will impact a majority of Americans almost immediately. The memo might delay, potentially forever, the so-called “fiduciary rule” that would have legally bound financial advisers to give retirement savers the best advice possible.
Critics lashed out, claiming the memo was a gift to Wall Street, as it threatens to roll back rules designed to protect Americans’ retirement accounts instituted in the wake of the financial crisis, when some savers saw their account balances drop by 25% in a single year, according to an estimate from Hewitt Associates. But supporters say those rules were flawed, and that this cure for the financial crisis was worse than the disease.
If you are looking for a bottom line, here it is: Financial advisers could be let off the hook from higher standards that were about to be placed on the advice they give investors. Those standards would have opened up advisers to lawsuits if they gave advice to clients that put their own commissions above their clients’ best interests.
But at least some of the intended effect of the rule may still happen. Because the rule was years in the making, and just weeks away from taking effect, many brokerages have said they’ve already implemented the changes it required. Some are even using the moment as a marketing opportunity.
In practical terms, the new rules discourage advisers from offering commission-based products to buyers, so some firms, like Merrill Lynch and JP Morgan Chase, were moving away from commission-based IRAs. That change will probably continue.
For now, the memo also means consumers must be vigilant and ask financial advisers, “Are you getting a commission?” when taking their advice.
Consumer advocates spent years working to get the federal government to enact a rule that targets these potential conflicts of interest. They finally made progress in 2010 when the Labor Department, which regulates some retirement accounts, initially proposed a fiduciary rule. After years of bickering with the financial industry, the Labor Department finally settled on the rule in April 2016. It was set to take effect this April.
Only retirement accounts were to be covered by the rule; normally taxed brokerage accounts were not. The rule would have covered certain financial advisers who use titles like wealth manager, investment consultant or broker; certified financial planners are already required to meet the fiduciary standard.
Many consumers don’t realize that current rules mean some advisers can legally steer clients into high-commission products when better, cheaper options exist. The Obama administration, which supported the Labor Department rule, issued a report last year claiming that less-than-best advice to savers costs Americans $17 billion annually in retirement funds.
Undermining Consumer Protections?
A second financial-related executive action signed by Trump last week may have even farther-reaching consequences, but they won’t happen right away. That order called for a review of financial reform legislation known as “Dodd-Frank,” which passed after the housing bubble burst. Its numerous protections included tighter monitoring of the stability of banks and creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Trump’s order calls for the Treasury Secretary to review the law and recommend changes within 120 days.
Advocacy groups said that taken together, the two orders threaten to undermine a host of new rules put in place to protect consumers.
“President Trump’s comments and executive order today suggesting rollback of financial regulations would violate his campaign promises to hold Wall Street accountable and to help everyday American families,” said Christine Hines, Legislative Director of the National Association of Advocates, in a statement. “We must never forget that the reckless behavior of big banks and predatory lenders and the lack of safeguards to hold them responsible for their actions caused the Great Recession, leaving millions of Americans without jobs, wiping out their savings, and causing devastating loss of their homes.”
A draft of the fiduciary rule memo called for a 180-day delay of the rule and a review by the Labor Department. The order actually signed by Trump omitted the language calling for immediate delay, but that’s still a likely outcome. Acting U.S. Secretary of Labor Ed Hugler made that clear in a statement:
“The Department of Labor will now consider its legal options to delay the applicability date as we comply with the President’s memorandum,” it read.
The memo was cheered by some on Wall Street. Discouraging commission-based products hurts smaller investors who don’t like paying up-front fees, they argued.
“Americans are going to have better choices and Americans are going to have better products because we’re not going to burden the banks with literally hundreds of billions of dollars of regulatory costs every year,” said National Economic Council director Gary Cohn to the Wall Street Journal. “The banks are going to be able to price product more efficiently and more effectively to consumers.”
But consumer advocates were unanimous in their condemnation of the review, saying it could remove a critical tool for protecting unsophisticated retirement savers.
“If the Department of Labor follows through on this threat and delays and repeals the rule, brokers and insurance agents will be free to go back to putting their own financial interests ahead of the interests of their clients, recommending investments that are profitable for the firm but not the customer,” the Consumer Federation of America said in a statement. “And they will be permitted to do all this while claiming to act as trusted advisers.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), said in a statement that the review “will make it easier for investment advisors to cheat you out of your retirement savings.”
“Donald Trump talked a big game about Wall Street during his campaign — but as President, we’re finding out whose side he’s really on,” she said.
Retirement savers should know that the immediate effect of the Trump memo means advisers can continue to give out bad advice that’s compromised by commission structure; the rule that remains in effect now requires only that the investment is “suitable.” That might sound like a small distinction, but John Bogle, the man who popularized low-cost index funds, put it in context in an interview with Business Insider at the end of December:
“Fiduciary means putting the client first, and as I have observed in the past, the only other rule we have is the client comes second,” Bogle said.
The Trump administration did not immediately respond to requests for comment on how the actions would affect consumers.
How You Can Protect Yourself
Before making any investment decision based on an adviser’s recommendation, always ask if he or she will earn a commission. When picking an adviser, ask if their firm accepts fiduciary responsibility. Even if it’s not legally required, advisers can voluntarily accept the fiduciary standard. But make sure you get that in writing. For more, read the Consumer Federation of America’s report, “Financial Adviser of Investment Salespeson?”
If you’ve read this far, perhaps you’d like to support what I do. That’s easy. Sign up for my free email list, click on an advertisement, or just share the story.