Investor Rights Update: Investor Choice and a Uniform Fiduciary Standard
Investor Choice. Since 1987, when the Supreme Court decided McMahon v. Shearson Lehman Brothers, investors have been denied their Constitutional right to a jury trial. Instead, if they have lost money through the fraud or negligence of a FINRA-licensed stockbroker, financial advisor or brokerage firm, investors are required to bring their cases through the FINRA arbitration process. Although we have seen benefits for many of our clients in using the FINRA arbitration forum over the last 23 years, some cases are better resolved in court by a judge and jury. Investor Choice simply allows investors to choose between FINRA arbitration and court. Congressman Ellison from Minnesota has introduced the Investor Choice Act, which would give investors that choice. There is no legitimate reason for barring investors from the courthouse doors. Congress should side with individuals and not with Wall Street firms. Call your representatives and urge them to support Investor Choice!
Uniform Fiduciary Standard. A fiduciary standard requires nothing more than putting the investor’s needs ahead of the brokerage firm. That is what investors expect from a financial adviser, and that is what brokerage firms claim to provide. But, that is not what happens in reality. PIABA prepared and distributed to Congress and the press a compelling report that collected advertisements of brokerage firms, all of which declare that they put investors first. When those same firms face FINRA arbitration claims from investors for mismanagement and fraud, however, they deny that they owe any fiduciary obligations to their clients. The PIABA report includes specific examples of the defenses that the firms file. We see the same tired defense routinely raised when we include claims for breach of fiduciary duty. The Wall Street firms claim that their only obligation is to make “suitable” investment recommendations.
What’s the difference between a suitability standard and a fiduciary standard?
Commissions and fees. A suitable investment must be in line with an investor’s investment objectives and risk tolerance levels, but it need not necessarily be in the investor’s best interest. Say that there are two mutual funds, each consisting of a similar broad mix of stocks and bonds. One charges the investor a 3% commission and the other 1%. Under the pure suitability standard, the financial advisor may be able to recommend only the higher commissioned product, even if he is fully aware of the lower cost fund and it is readily available. Under a fiduciary standard, he could not. Does that matter? It does. The White House issued a report recently that explained that even a 1% difference in commissions results in many thousands of dollars in the value of a retirement account over time. Jason Zweig, an insightful columnist on investor issues at The Wall Street Journal, has made similar observations. Currently, registered investment advisors are held to a fiduciary standard, but financial advisers who work at a brokerage firm are not, at least under federal law. Investors don’t know the difference between investment advisors who are registered with the SEC and financial advisors who are FINRA licensed. And, practically speaking, there is no difference. Both provide investment advice to their clients. SEC Chairperson Mary Jo White and the White House have stated that we need a uniform federal fiduciary standard for all advisers, whether they are FINRA licensed or SEC registered. PIABA agrees, and I agree. You should too. The claims of the financial services industry that a fiduciary standard would prevent middle class Americans from getting financial advice is bunk. Many states, including Oregon and California, already impose fiduciary obligations on advisers that advise their clients on what investments to make, and investors in those states get the same advice and service as investors in non-fiduciary duty states.