The following is in response to Bob Veres’ article, How to Respond to the Bachus-McCarthy Bill, which appeared last week:
Dear Editor:
Bob Veres’ article was very informative and to the point. Unfortunately, little of this information is getting out the general public. As with most politically oriented information these days, the public is receiving only what the media is allowing. This is a very sad statement about both our news media and our government.
As Americans we used to be very proud of our freedom of information. But that is now limited to what the media wants us to know. No one seems to even notice what we lost. I am personally sad to hear the amount of political input that has gone into the Bachus-McCarthy bill rather than what the true value of “fiduciary” duty is to clients.
I have been in the broker-dealer environment for over 25 years and witnessed an honest misunderstanding of the handling of most customer-broker arbitrations. At some point along the line, it appears that the interest of cash in the pocket overcame the client’s personal responsibility for their decisions. I could expand on that with both client and broker stories, but the real issue is how NASD/FINRA made many of the situations unrealistic to resolve without the major expenses of an attorney. Many times the client or the broker was totally lost in the mix of getting to the bottom of the issue, once FINRA and its attorneys got involved.
Although I understand the need for an authority to oversee both the good along with the bad producers, I do not understand why FINRA should be the Registered Investment Advisor’s SRO. It has been reported that FINRA is going to increase fees for BDs, but it lost money for years going back to 2008 market decline.
How will adding another cost to the small advisors benefit anyone, when FINRA does not seem to be able to cover expenses that already exist within its organization?
Respectfully,
Laura Roberts
Sr. Compliance Analyst
