February 10th, 2017
Trump issued a Memorandum (FR Doc. 2017-02656) to “reconsider” the Obama administration’s “Definition of the Term “Fiduciary”; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice, 81 Fed. Reg. 20946 (April 8, 2016),” specifically, “You are directed to examine the Fiduciary Duty Rule to determine whether it may adversely affect the ability of Americans to gain access to retirement information and financial advice.”
We saw what directives to examine something goes, i.e., DAPL and KXL. Here, it’s been in the federal courts, where the courts are upholding the Fiduciary Duty Rule.
What’s the Fiduciary Duty Rule? It means that financial planners have a fiduciary duty to their clients, and must put their interests first, i.e., put them first over the planner’s financial interest in pushing business one way or another considering their remuneration for their services, commissions, etc.
tRump thinks the Fiduciary Duty Rule is a bad thing! How does he justify this? He doesn’t have to. With a stroke of the pen, he knocks it down (probably not understanding this, either!).
But here comes another federal court decision where Obama’s Fiduciary Duty Rule was challenged, and the court upheld the Rule: