[ad_1]
Knut Rostad, president of the Institute for the Fiduciary Standard
“I want to comment on some of the comments or general comments from the rule opponents, such as SIFMA and the Chamber of Commerce. And I think they offer vivid examples why this rule is so sorely needed. Their comments reject the underlying rationale for fiduciary advice that had been, until recently, the legislative, legal and regulatory support for the rationale. That rationale is the fundamental difference between a business model that is designed and constructed to distribute products as opposed to a business model designed to, as much as is humanly possible, as the Supreme Court expressed, deliver competent and objective advice. Their comments, in our view, reject ‘the moral purpose,’ quote/unquote, behind the securities laws that followed the depression, and our forefathers and foremothers, so to speak, have set out in fiduciary care. Their comments reject fiduciary advice as developed as a code of ethics or conduct, as envisioned by Franklin Roosevelt, literally some 90 years ago.”
[ad_2]
Source link
