I don’t understand the problem with the intent of the rule. Advisers should be fiduciaries—otherwise they are predators.
However, I wonder how much of a hassle and expense it is to PROVE compliance with the rule. Is that the problem?
Further, if an adviser really abuses a client, there’s always the court system. How does the regulatory system fit in here, except to give the adviser’s auditors more to complain about?
The devil is in the details.
That’s why I posted this. I wasn’t sure why there would be a delay and wanted FR’s input.
Not really. Most financial advisor agreements require arbitration in case of disputes, and the arbitration is run through their industry trade group. Guess who the arbitrators tend to side with.