August 24, 2010
I believe this additional regulatory attempt is unnecessary and essentially redundant. Currently, my conduct is governed by SEC statutory regulations, FINRA statutory regulations, my firm's compliance and regulatory efforts, and the ethical Code of Conduct for my LUTCF designation. In addition, I carry EO insurance in the event that a client believes I have not carried out my responsibilities appropriately. An additional mandate of fiduciary responsibility will not impose any additional care or caution in my activities as the activities are already performed under strict regulatory oversight with adherance to the ethical and financial standards of the regulatory and industry bodies previously stated. Addition of a fiduciary standard to my role would frankly be nominal - I already have significant professional, ethical, and financial exposure without being a named fiduciary. My belief is rather than strenghten oversight and responsibility on me, this will open a Pandora's box of reckless irresponsibility on the part of the investing public, who will see a registered representative's "fiduciary obligation" as a free pass for their own decision making and participation, creating a wave of specious litigation due to the desire to shift blame for their own potential poor decisions, poor performance, or poor product selection to a representative, regardless of the rep's actual advice or performance, simply because the word "fiduciary" has been attached. I strongly advocate against passage of this legislation.