July 28, 2010
i would like for the committee to research how registered representatives are being compenstated. i know of no other profession that receives a fee on the sale of an investment to a purchaser and remains "liable" for the financial advise until the investment is liquidated and/or or until the purchaser dies . ( there are times when the beneficiaries can legally question the advise from the RR) .
for example, a client opens up an ira, invests $2,000.00 in 1988 . after the purchase, the investor expects to review and discuss their investment with the RR at least twice a year for as long as they hold the investment. in this example that would be at least through 2010 and on into the future. the RR received compensation of less than $80.00 as a result of the investment. however, the sec and other regulatory bodies as well as the investor expects that the RR will continue to advise the purchaser throughout the life of the investment .the RR is accountable for having the clients best interest in mind throughout the years that the investor retains the investment. however, the RR is not compensated for monitoring the account, meeting with the client throughout the decades and continuing to provide investment advise. yet they are held accountable for the financial advise that was provided to the investor 22 years ago. NOTE: $80.00 divided by 22 years reflects earnings to the RR of approximately approximately #3.64 annually as a result of the clients purchase. this is under the current minimum wage and you can be sure that more than an hour will be invested on the account and with the client.
please justify why RR's are being overpaid for their financial advise and why 12-b one fees are not appropriate. the high fees are not being paid to the RR's as this example clearly reflects. the information that the committe is reviewing is biased.,skewed and is incorrect. . please research specificaly where the fees are going, who is getting paid, how much they are being paid, who is benefiting for each penny the investor is paying. the beneficiaries are not the RR's by any stretch of the imaginiation. to state that the investor is receiving a cost effective expense for the advise he/she is receiving from the RR is a grave understatement ( is there any other investment on the planet where an investor expects to pay a one time fee and receive financial advise, an RR's time, an RR to provide ongoing monitoring of the investment, regular contact, tax information, etc. for the investment for as long as the purchaser retains the investment with no additinal costs? ) the RR's should be more fairly compensated for the financial advise and the services they provide for the individual investor when it comes to mutual funds.