Document Type
Article
Publication Title
PIABA Bar Journal
Publication Date
2015
Volume
22
First Page
1
Abstract
(Excerpt)
No national standard exists today requiring brokerage firms to put their clients’ interests first by avoiding making profits from conflicted advice. In the five years since the passage of the Dodd Frank Act, inaction by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on a fiduciary standard has cost American investors nearly $80 billion, based on estimated losses of $17 billion per year.
Amid encouraging recent signs of possible action from the Department of Labor and the SEC, there is a compelling case to be made for a ban on conflicted advice in order to protect investors. In the absence of such a standard, brokerage firms now engage in advertising that is clearly calculated to leave the false impression with investors that stockbrokers take the same fiduciary care as a doctor or a lawyer. But, while brokerage firms advertise as though they are trusted guardians of their clients’ best interests, they arbitrate any resulting disputes as though they are used car salesmen.
A review by the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (PIABA) of the advertising and arbitration stances of nine major brokerage firms – Merrill Lynch, Fidelity Investments, Ameriprise, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Allstate Financial, UBS, Berthel Fisher, and Charles Schwab – finds that all nine advertise in a fashion that is designed to lull investors into the belief that they are being offered the services of a fiduciary.
For example, Merrill Lynch advertises as follows: “It’s time for a financial strategy that puts your needs and priorities front and center.” Fidelity Investments appeals to investors with these words: “Acting in good faith and taking pride in getting things just right. The personal commitment each of us makes to go the extra mile for our customers and put their interests before our own is a big part of what has always made Fidelity a special place to work and do business.”
Nonetheless, all nine brokerage firms using the fiduciary-like appeals in their ads eschew any such responsibility when it comes to battling investor claims in arbitration. Adding to the confusion is the fact that five of the eight brokerage firms – Ameriprise, Merrill Lynch, Fidelity, Wells Fargo, and Charles Schwab – have publicly stated that they support a fiduciary standard. But these firms are every bit as vociferous as the other four brokerages in denying that they have any fiduciary obligation when push comes to shove in an arbitration case filed by investors who have lost some or all of their nest egg due to conflicted advice.
In this atmosphere of misleading advertising and a complete disavowal by brokerage firms of the same ad claims in arbitration, investor losses will continue to mount at the rate of nearly $20 billion per year until the SEC and DOL prescribe the long-overdue remedy: a “fiduciary duty” standard banning conflicted advice.
Comments
Available at: https://piaba.org/piaba-bar-journal/piaba-bj-vol-22-no-1-2015
Reprinted with the permission of Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (PIABA). Joseph C. Peiffer & Christine Lazaro, Major Investor Losses Due to Conflicted Advice: Brokerage Industry Advertising Creates the Illusion of a Fiduciary Duty, PIABA B.J., Vol 22, No. 1 (2015).