fb-pixel

The Obama administration’s proposed best-interest regulation for financial professionals would harm many Americans who need help saving for retirement (“Springfield’s Neal draws fire for bill on investing,” Page A1, Jan. 5). This is something Representative Richard Neal understands. The bill he has introduced, with bipartisan support, offers an alternative that would benefit consumers.

The administration’s regulation fills 115 pages in the Federal Register. It is complicated, confusing, and ultimately unworkable. Saying it would simply require advisers to work in clients’ best interests is an easy sound bite, but there is much more to it.

It would disrupt relationships my clients and I have worked hard over many years to build. It would make it impossible for me to fully inform my clients about their retirement plan options, and would reduce consumers’ choices.

I wish the administration’s proposal were as simple as requiring me to work in my clients’ best interests. I have done that my entire career as a financial adviser. I am glad that Neal and dozens of other Democrats and Republicans in Congress have raised concerns about the administration’s proposal and are looking out for my clients’ interests too.

Advertisement



Jules O. Gaudreau
Wilbraham

The writer is president of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors and a MassMutual financial adviser.