Dueling comment letters from the US investment industry’s foremost trade associations have brought principal trades to the forefront of the long running debate on broker-dealer fiduciary obligations.
In-house brokerage counsel have called for a bigger picture analysis which goes beyond the current focus on semantics.
A March 28 letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from seven investment advisor associations responds to, and disagrees with, points raised by Sifma in its
July 2011 comment letter on the same topic.
Section 913 of Dodd-Frank mandated the SEC to study whether broker-dealers should be subject to a fiduciary standard “no less stringent than the standard applicable to investment advisers” under the Investment Advisors Act 1940 (the 40 Act) when providing personalised investment advice to retail customers.
The SEC’s report last year recommended this change. And Sifma and the investment associations agree a uniform fiduciary standard is needed in...
Only subscribers to the full IFLR service have access to this article. Please
log in or
subscribe now.
Alternatively, you can take a
free trial, giving you 7 days of free access to the full IFLR service*.
*Some articles may be restricted to subscribers only.
Subscribe Now
This article is only available to subscribers of the full IFLR service.
Please click here to subscribe.
Subscribe
Take a Free Trial
Click here to gain limited 7 days access through a free trial.
Free Trial
The material on this site is for financial institutions, professional investors and their professional advisers. It is for information only. Please read our terms and conditions and privacy policy before using the site. All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2013 Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC. For help please see our FAQ.