4 ms·
That's a pretty bad framing. The argument against the fiduciary rule is that it will decrease access to advisers, which is what in fact happened in Britain, see
by ikeboy 10y ago
That's a pretty bad framing. The argument against the fiduciary rule is that it will decrease access to advisers, which is what in fact happened in Britain, see e.g. https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2015/09/28/the-dol-s-fiduciary-rule-what-we-can-learn-from-the-u-k https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2015/09/28/the-... or http://www.vox.com/2015/12/21/10634980/obama-fiduciary-rule-explained http://www.vox.com/2015/12/21/10634980/obama-fiduciary-rule-...
The question is whether the harm caused by the decreased access is worse than the harm caused by conflicted advice, which is by no means an easy question to answer.
- maxxxxx 10y agoWhat good is advice that is not in the interest of the advised? Maybe we should lower ethical standards for doctors too so people have more access to doctors no matter what their real motivation is.
- ikeboy 10y agoThe question is whether some advice is better than no advice. There are arguments on both sides. See e.g. https://qz.com/638603/sorry-senator-warren-your-plan-wont-fix-financial-advisors/ https://qz.com/638603/sorry-senator-warren-your-plan-wont-fi...
- maxxxxx 10y agoI will vote for no advice. It's too easy to exploit this.