…my answer is Yes.
In his recent spate of initiatives, President Obama is proposing that retail brokers be legally declared to be fiduciaries, the way investment advisers already are. I’ve written about this before, when the SEC carried out a study of the topic, ordered in the Dodd Frank Act, which it published in early 2011. Nothing happened back then. Probably the same result this time.
As I see it the change would mean that, for example:
–unlike today, your broker would have to point out, when he gives you a computer-generated analysis of your financial needs and a resulting asset allocation, that the names suggested consist solely of funds that pay fees to be on the list–and that potentially better-performing, lower cost funds that don’t pay have been excluded.
–that his (about 90% of traditional brokers are men) favorite fund families, whose offerings he always touts to you, also treat big producers like him (and a companion, usually) to periodic educational seminars at a sunny resorts in return.
More than that, depending on how any new regulations are written, he might also have to tell you that the trade his firm is charging $300 for could be executed just as well at a discount broker for less than $10.
brokers say No!
Brokerage houses are strongly opposed to Mr. Obama. They’ve apparently already raised enough of a lobbying fuss in a very short time to cause the President to weaken his proposal.
How so? From a business perspective, wouldn’t it make sense for traditional brokers to hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct? They might thereby improve their very low standing in the public mind and possibly stem the continual loss of market share they’re suffered over the past decades.
Two practical problems:
loss of skills
–over the past twenty years, brokers have homogenized their sales forces, moving them away from having their own thoughts and opinions about stock and bond markets to being marketers of pre-packaged products and ideas developed at central headquarters.
The ascendancy of pure marketing over investment savvy may have had sound reasoning behind it (although I regard it as one more triumph for the former in the battle of jocks (traders) vs. nerds (researchers) that I’ve witnessed through my Wall Street career). However, most of the experienced researchers who had the skills to shape an investment policy and retrain the sales force have been fired either before or during the recent recession.
It’s easier in the short run to lobby against change than to revamp operations–or rehire the newly laid-off nerds needed to accomplish the task.
red ink = loss of bonuses
–in almost any phase of economic (or any other kind of) life, the status quo is extremely powerful.
Traditional retail brokerage is extremely high cost. Remember, the retail broker himself nets only about half the fees he generates. The rest goes to support very elaborate–and now seriously outmoded–bricks-and-mortar infrastructure and central overhead. Lowering fees to get closer to discount broker levels, spending to raise the quality of proprietary products sold or consolidating real estate would all diminish–or even temporarily erase–operating income. In a culture that values short-term trading profits over all else, it’s hard to develop support for a move like this.