October 27, 2010
what a disappointment that you think eliminating fees will allow consumers better access to information and funds. do you not understand that most consumers rely on their financial advisor to help them sort through the funds to find an appropriate fit for their investment strategy. do you know how many of my clients would have the money set back that they do if i had not encouraged and cajoled them to get started on their plans. are you thinking that financial planners charging fees is the best answer??? and just where does that leave all those folks who are struggling to keep their jobs, though their hours have been cut, and they are now making less than $45,000 a year and trying to raise a family???? now, explain to me how they'll ever justify PAYING a planner in addition to buying the product. and waht a rip off a number of the proucts are how could you allow some of the trash out on the streets that these companies offer what planet are you on? clients call and want to know how to get money and what can they do becuase their job situation is now abyssmal. all i can say is that OBVIOUSLY you have NEVER had a financial advisor who CARED about you and your familys' well being. you must have been exposed to sell and run brokers who were more concerned with their pocketbook than with YOURS portfolio. i hope that someday you will allow yourself to experience waht an planner with a conscience can do for you.
by the way, I have been a licensed insurance professional and registered representative for over 30 years. i support new SEC rule 12b-2, which would continue the 25 basis points fee that is used to ensure investors receive ongoing service and advice, and the SEC's proposed use of the terms "marketing and service fees" and "ongoing sales charge" in place of "12b-1 fees" to improve transparency in disclosure documents. however, I strongly object to the SEC permitting mutual funds to issue a new class of shares at net asset value that would allow broker-dealers to set their own sales charge and commission amount, what a can of worms that would be - competition based on price and cost sounds good but will come at the expense of needed advice and service for middle market investors, the very ones who need it the most. the wealthy will ALWAYS have advisors and pay for it. as broker-dealers lower their sales charges and fees in an effort to gain market share, it will no longer be financially feasible for registered representatives to continue to provide the level of individualized advice and ongoing service that we currently provide to our middle and lower market clients. as a result, only upper-income investors who can afford assets-under-management arrangements or higher cost/higher service classes of shares will continue to receive personalized investment advice. so just WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO PROTECT??? Investors with smaller fund account balances will be forced to self-direct their accounts if they wish to continue to own mutual funds because their advisors will no longer be able to afford to spend the time to guide and advise them, leaving discount brokerage fund platforms as the only affordable option for middle and lower market investors. let me give you the names of a couple of clients and the very fine experience they have had at those houses the people the SEC is trying to protect the most--middle and lower market investors-will be hurt the most, since they will be deprived of the guidance and service they need and deserve.
i certainly hope you will consult with those individuals involved in the day to day operations, and not setting in offices providing hypotheticals all day long. get a grip SEC. go after the folks that are ruining our economy and throw the crooks UNDER the jail.
dianna mercier 865-523-0741