This is such a beautiful example of the anti-regulation fallacy that so many people for some reason believe in. It's beauty is in that there is literally no arg

This is such a beautiful example of the anti-regulation fallacy that so many people for some reason believe in. It's beauty is in that there is literally no argument against the rule, except the vague notion of "freedom", which in this case means freedom to violate the rule which... "...demand that advisors act in the best interests of their clients, and to put their clients' interests above their own. It leaves no room for advisors to conceal any potential conflict of interest, and states that all fees and commissions must be clearly disclosed in dollar form to clients." I bet almost everyone would have expected this to have been the law all along–in fact I don't quite understand why it wasn't fraud before to give suboptimal advice while collection undisclosed kickbacks. For any advisor conducting his business with a modicum of common decency, nothing changes (except that it will become easier to compete ethically when everyone is playing by the same rules)