Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H. Joint Res. 88

Does Congress Need to Block New Regulations on Financial Advisors?

Argument in favor

The Dept. of Labor’s rule would make it harder for low and middle income families to afford retirement planning and investment advice through its mandates on advisors. Congress needs to reject this new regulation, as investment advisors are already required to avoid conflicts of interest.

wsdraperv's Opinion
···
04/28/2016
I'm a financial advisor and I deal with very strict FINRA rules already. The DOL ruling will make it more difficult and expensive for clients. A fiduciary rule is unnecessary as a suitability rule works just great.
Like (20)
Follow
Share
operaman's Opinion
···
04/28/2016
If these new regulations are not from Congress and they are not, then they are not Laws. Sorry Obama, try working with Congress instead of using your PEN and your PHONE.
Like (10)
Follow
Share
Loraki's Opinion
···
04/28/2016
The dadgummed Obama Administration never met a regulation they didn't like! Time to cut government down to size and use the money we save to rejuvenate our aging infrastructure and rebuild our military (minus all the social engineering garbage Obama has been forcing on it), and whittle down the national debt!!!
Like (5)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Congress needs to allow this rule to proceed to prevent unscrupulous financial advisors from exploiting their clients for their own benefit. President Obama has already threatened to veto this effort to block the rule, so unless Congress thinks they can override a veto they shouldn’t bother.

Nancy's Opinion
···
04/30/2016
Having worked in a profession that is heavily regulated, I know that regulations are needed to keep corruption and self-serving behaviors at a minimum. These regulations are not that intrusive and make good sense and are common sense. We owe it to the public to provide them a minimum level of protection against those that will take advantage of them if possible. Partisanship should Never be used as an excuse not to do what is ethically right for the common good of our citizenry.
Like (35)
Follow
Share
Steven's Opinion
···
05/01/2016
Banks and big business have gambled with impunity using the taxpayers as a safety net long enough. If I'm on the hook for your reckless behavior then you need rules.
Like (31)
Follow
Share
David's Opinion
···
04/28/2016
The new rules require advisors to act in the best interests of their clients -- the same standard as wealthy clients already have. Rather than pricing middle class out of a market, the new rules provide an equal playing field for all investors
Like (20)
Follow
Share

joint resolution Progress


  • Vetoed
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate Passed May 24th, 2016
    Roll Call Vote 56 Yea / 41 Nay
  • The house Rejected June 23rd, 2016
    Roll Call Vote 239 Yea / 180 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Education and Labor
      Committee on Ways and Means
    IntroducedApril 19th, 2016

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

What is House Bill H. Joint Res. 88?

This resolution would nullify and express Congress’ disapproval of a Dept. of Labor (DOL) rule related to the definition of the term “fiduciary” and its relationship to conflicts of interest in offering retirement investment advice. Fiduciary rules look to prevent conflicts of interest by requiring an advisor to act in the best interest of their client rather than their own when offering advice.

The rule had been published on April 8, 2016 and broadens conflict of interest rules to require investment advice about Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and 401(k) accounts comply with regulations aimed at preventing conflicts of interest. Under current law investments of those types aren’t always covered by fiduciary rules. It would also restrict the ability of advisors to assist small businesses that seek advice in setting up retirement plans.

As a joint resolution, this legislation would advance to the Senate and potentially the president’s desk if it passed by both chambers of Congress. If signed by the president, it would have the force of law under the authority of the Congressional Review Act.

Impact

People looking to invest in IRAs or 401(k) plans; financial advisors; Congress; and the Dept. of Labor.

Cost of House Bill H. Joint Res. 88

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN) introduced this bill to prevent the Dept. of Labor’s “fiduciary” rule from taking effect due to concerns that it is unworkable and will reduce access to sound financial advice for average Americans:

“Our goal as policymakers should be to advance  bold, bipartisan solutions that will help more Americans plan, invest, and save for retirement. Regrettably, the department’s fiduciary regulation would move our country in the opposite direction. It would cut off a vital source of support many low- and middle-income families and small business owners rely on, and that is the help of a trusted financial advisor.”

The Obama administration issued a veto threat against this resolution in the hopes of allowing the rule to be fully implemented, calling it “critical to protecting Americans’ hard-earned savings and preserving their retirement security.”

Some industry groups have pushed back against the regulation, calling the proposal “extremely complicated and expensive” because it will “limit the services available to many modest-income investors.”

This legislation was passed by the House Education and Workforce Committee on a 22-14 vote, and has the support of 30 cosponsors, all of whom are Republicans.



Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user GRAPHIC MASHUP)

Official Title

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to the definition of the term "Fiduciary".

    I'm a financial advisor and I deal with very strict FINRA rules already. The DOL ruling will make it more difficult and expensive for clients. A fiduciary rule is unnecessary as a suitability rule works just great.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    Having worked in a profession that is heavily regulated, I know that regulations are needed to keep corruption and self-serving behaviors at a minimum. These regulations are not that intrusive and make good sense and are common sense. We owe it to the public to provide them a minimum level of protection against those that will take advantage of them if possible. Partisanship should Never be used as an excuse not to do what is ethically right for the common good of our citizenry.
    Like (35)
    Follow
    Share
    Banks and big business have gambled with impunity using the taxpayers as a safety net long enough. If I'm on the hook for your reckless behavior then you need rules.
    Like (31)
    Follow
    Share
    The new rules require advisors to act in the best interests of their clients -- the same standard as wealthy clients already have. Rather than pricing middle class out of a market, the new rules provide an equal playing field for all investors
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    Why block regulations on the same companies that caused the financial crises? More regulations here, not fewer protect small businesses & consumers from shady financial institutions!
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    If these new regulations are not from Congress and they are not, then they are not Laws. Sorry Obama, try working with Congress instead of using your PEN and your PHONE.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    The exploitation of citizens by unscrupulous financial advisers shall end; with this nay vote we move one step closer to a more stable marketplace.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    I can't believe that this bill is even under consideration! I have two good friends who have lost thousands of dollars in their retirement accounts due to false advise about investing in unlisted reits. Had the "salesmen" who recommended these products been held to some fiduciary standards, this would not have happened. Any congressman voting for this bill is clearly in to pocket of wallstreet crooks.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill should be renamed as: "Should financial advisors continue to take advantage of their clients' 401k/IRAs, without any disclosures?". My answer to that is NO. Today, financial advisors can easily tell you to invest in a fund that is "suitable" but costs you a lot more money throughout your life and delays your retirement. They can do this, and get paid for that, costing you money and making money for the financial advisor and the fund's manager. Let's not allow that.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Anything to protect the people who wants to pull a fast one on you. The politicians are mostly lawyers. So as usual things are in their favor. The public needs protection. Just my opinion
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Fiduciary responsibility to your clients should be mandatory.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    The dadgummed Obama Administration never met a regulation they didn't like! Time to cut government down to size and use the money we save to rejuvenate our aging infrastructure and rebuild our military (minus all the social engineering garbage Obama has been forcing on it), and whittle down the national debt!!!
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    It's incredible we even have to have this conversation/vote. Obviously we should not allow financial advisers to screw the client over for their own gain. Investment banks have done this for far too long with the tax payers on the line for their greed. We are at a pivotal point in our country. Are we going to fall completely into a corporate fascist society?? NAY
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Financial advisors are not fiduciaries. They don't act on the best interest of consumers/investors. Regulation is required to ensure consumers of their products are aware of this or that they are required to act on the consumer's best interests.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Financial advisors, unless they are a fiduciary, are not legally obligated to act in the best interest of the investor. That's messed up. Though there may be some decrease in "access" to financial advisors, we cannot consider the advice of a non-fiduciary to be sound advice. Therefore, the DOL's rule must be permitted to go through, protecting Americans' retirement money.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Please force financial advisors to act as fiduciaries. Right now, without adequate regulations, they often persuade people to do unwise things with their money just for the commissions.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    We need more regulation on anyone who controls our financial future. They should be held accountable
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Steep regulation when it comes to matters such as this is necessary. Conflicts of interest are not acceptable when others are handling your money.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Congress needs to be proactive when it comes to financial advisors.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    We've seen Financial Advisors exploit clients due to commission incentives. The DoL ruling realigns their incentives, and better ingrains their capacity to keep their clients interests first.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE