Tag: Fiduciary adviser
Advisers generally are not qualified to represent their clients before the IRS, and so they generally must shy away from offering tax advice; but that doesn’t mean they can afford to ignore the broad or specific implications of recent tax reforms for their clients.
The number of Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawsuits winning class certification in 2017 far outstripped the number of suits within which class action status was denied; attorneys with Seyfarth Shaw offer detailed analysis of all the ongoing cases.
The direct-to-sponsor firm proudly brands itself as an advisory industry disruptor, boasting fast revenue growth and a 30-day average sales cycle; we sit down with lead strategy officer Josh Robbins for a frank conversation about what comes next for the company and its “traditional” competition.
During a webinar called to discuss the advisory industry impacts of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, experts warned advisers to be ready to decline to offer tax advice during 2018—over and over again.
Texting is becoming the public’s communication channel of choice, the firm says, but the common communication pathway presents regulatory and practical challenges in the independent adviser context.
Regulatory developments in Nevada and New York show inaction at the federal level on clarifying advisers’ and brokers’ fiduciary duties is leading to a patchwork of state-by-state approaches to mitigating conflicts, real and perceived.
More than half of this generation currently does not have an adviser.
They want help with investments, participant education and fiduciary responsibilities.
The Wall Street Journal published an analysis this week suggesting “at least five governmental agencies have received fake comments challenging the agencies' rules,” including the Department of Labor; the DOL is so far declining additional comment.
A number of key terms commonly present difficulty for nonprofit plan sponsors of all sizes—in particular the terminology surrounding “revenue sharing,” “fee levelization,” “fee policy statements,” and “3(21) vs. 3(38) advisers.”
IRI’s basic argument is that empirical evidence shows the outsized role advisers and consultants play in boosting investing outcomes—and that these professionals should not face overly burdensome restrictions on the recommendations they make involving mutual funds and annuities.