On the recordMay 24, 2016
this is a new tack here. The Republican leader appears to say--doesn't appear to say; it is what he said--that a rule would require investment advisers to act in the best interests of their investors. Is there something wrong with that? I don't see it. Imagine, Republicans want investment advisers to act in someone else's interests--namely, their own. The reason this came to be is that investment advisers are more interested in how much they can make rather than the people who are trying to acquire some assets in their retirement age. This is widely accepted as being important. The only people who oppose it are the investment advisers who are putting money in their own pockets instead of those of the people they represent. They have a fiduciary rule which is unwritten--of course, now it will be written--that you should take your clients' interests first, and that is the way doctors have to operate, as well as lawyers and accountants. There is no reason that investment advisers shouldn't also be in a position where they are more concerned about their client rather than themselves. ____________________





