Letters

I read with interest the article “Compensation: SEC mandate called too broad,” which appeared in the July 20 issue.

Don’t paint all advisers with the same brush

I read with interest the article “Compensation: SEC mandate called too broad,” which appeared in the July 20 issue.

I found the comment made by Barbara Roper, the Pueblo, Colo.-based director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America in Washington, regarding the way brokers and advisers are compensated and painting all brokers and advisers with the same brush, to be naïve and short-sighted.

I would concede that there are some financial advisers who take compensation into consideration when recommending a particular investment strategy.

However, banning certain commissions and fees won’t solve the problem. Instead, it would both reduce the availability of good advisers to small investors and also raise the costs to them when comparing commissions on small investments to the current schedule of minimum fees charged by most advisers.

Perhaps Ms. Roper would do the investing public more of a public service by calling for a ban on all campaign contributions to politicians, as many of them promote policies that benefit their contributors.

The public would be better served by a requirement that brokers and advisers disclose all fees and commissions than by a ban on certain compensation strategies.

The public would be served if politicians were required to have every other political advertisement state their 20 largest contributors.

Richard Volpe

Managing partner

Planning Solutions of Colorado LLC

Denver

Congress should plan but not vote on legislation

In the article “Bill would give indie advisers sole right to offer 401(k) advice” in the June 29 issue, Rep. Rob Andrews, D-N.J., is reported as advocating legislation prohibiting anyone from being involved in giving 401(k) advice if they could profit from the relationship.

It seems as if he might be on to something.

It probably would help improve the very low regard that many people have of Congress

If we restrict congressional activity to planning legislation, but not voting on it we would likely have far fewer conflicted representatives who are influenced by lobbyist money, special interest groups, etc.

Then, citizens could easily vote via the web and really decide the issues.

Art Amundsen

Investment representative

Edward D. Jones & Co. LP

Carlisle, Pa.

Definition of “fiduciary’ has been made clearer

Finally, some clarity as to what the word “fiduciary” really means.

As a fee-only registered investment adviser and a member of the Financial Planning Association of Denver and the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors of Arlington Heights, Ill., I have -supported the incorporation of a fiduciary standard into any new regulations.

Until I read the Other Voices column in the July 20 issue “What, exactly, does fiduciary really mean?” by Janice J. Sackley, a fiduciary bank risk manager in Kalamazoo, Mich., however, I didn’t fully understand some of the ramifications involving affiliated entities, self-dealing and the difference between a “client’s best interests” and “solely in the client’s interest.”

Her insightful article has helped me to more fully support the inclusion of a true fiduciary standard into our financial system.

Too bad we can’t make it required reading for all those folks at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the deceptively named Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. of New York and Washington.

Either they don’t realize what a significant improvement in investor protection a true fiduciary standard would provide, or they are still in the business of protecting the financial product distribution system from any meaningful accountability to the purchasers of their products.

Helen Modly

Executive vice president

Focus Wealth Management Ltd.

Middleburg, Va.