“It’s really hard to predict what a Trump administration would look like on these
issues because there are so few specifics out there.”
“The rule could be in jeopardy,” says Barbara Roper, director of Investor Protection at the Consumer Federation of America, an investor advocacy group.
Reversing the fiduciary standard on retirement accounts, which would upend firms’ costly efforts to comply with the regulation, is not a foregone conclusion. Although Trump stated his opposition repeatedly to Obama’s policies, he often refrained from spelling out his proposals in detail during the campaign.
The Trump campaign says on its website it would put a moratorium on new regulations and require federal agencies to prepare a list of all regulations, from most to least critical. “Least-critical regulations will receive priority consideration for repeal,” the website says.
“It’s really hard to predict what a Trump administration would look like on these issues because there are so few specifics out there,” Roper says.
Fiduciary rule ‘in jeopardy’ under Trump | Financial Planning
Rolling back the regulation would upend the plans of many brokerage and advisory firms, which have been spending heavily to prepare their systems and advisers for it.
Merrill Lynch, which has said it will cease offering commission-based IRAs to comply with the rule, has even created a fiduciary-based advertising campaign: “This is a positive step forward for the industry and great news for investors. At Merrill Lynch we support it wholeheartedly.”
As many of you know, we have been closely monitoring the DOL situation and how it will affect our industry, our reps and our standing as an IMO. We have been diligently working with industry experts to prepare for what is coming in 2017. Working closely with our Partners in IDA, as well as some of our Synergy Partners, we have a real plan of action no matter what direction we need to go in. No matter what direction YOU need to go in.
Our biggest idea that we can bring to you is this- don’t panic! There is no one in our industry who can tell you with any certainty exactly what will happen and what is needed for preparing for the New Post DOL world. There are just more questions. Even with the release of the DOL Q & A last week, we still don’t have definitive answers. Be patient. Keep your head up and listen to people who you trust. Now is not the time to jump ship based on here say. Stay the course. This is my advise.
Here is some more interesting advise from Sheryl Moore- noted expert in the annuity world.
Dozens of Field Marketing Organizations (FMOs) and Brokerage General Agencies (BGAs) have been contacting me since the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) final fiduciary rule was issued; wanting to know how they too can apply to become a ‘Financial Institution.’ In response, I reached back out to my folks at the DOL, asking for their guidance. In the interim, the 18 marketing organizations that have “applied with the DOL to be a Financial Institution (FI)” have received much press…many of these firms are even recruiting to this.
Today, I finally caught up with a lawyer I’ve been working with at the DOL. Interestingly, he indicates that there is no need for any marketing group or agency to submit an application for FI status. Although the DOL has received 18 applications thus far, it is unnecessary to apply. Ultimately, the DOL will issue an exemption, and if an FMO or BGA complies with the exemption, they will have relief. All one needs to do is notify the agency that they intend to comply with the class exemption.
Now, that being said, the DOL welcomes the conversations that they are having with marketing groups and agencies. However, the DOL’s intent is to provide a larger form of exempted relief, and all a firm needs to do is meet the exemptions.
This attorney could not speak to the date, upon which, such relief may be issued. However, he assured me that it is forthcoming.
So, if your marketing group or agency is tired of hearing from your reps that they are concerned you haven’t applied for FI status…just explain that you don’t need to.
Most of you who have attended our trainings know that I am a disciple of Thomas Freeze and his “Question Based Selling” approach. Most of what I have learned from his tapes and courses I have adapted to our industry and we cover within our various trainings. Relationship Building is one of his areas of expertise. In his new book “Sales Force 2020” Thomas spends a lot of time updating his ideas for today’s world. Here is a brief overview from the master himself.
Traditional Relationship Building is Overrated
By: Thomas A. Freese
Being outgoing, gregarious, and friendly used to be the savvy salesperson’s ticket to penetrating new accounts. Today, key decision makers on your target list of prospects already have plenty of friends. And, given the sheer volume of solicitations that come in on a daily basis, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the next cold call that gets lobbed in the customer’s direction has only a very small chance of success.
Some of the reason sellers are experiencing such low hit-rates is self-inflicted, by using traditional catch-phrases like, “I would love to…”, or, “I just need a brief moment of your time.” Decision makers know you’re not just looking for a brief moment of their time. They also assume salespeople have quotas to hit and would really “love” to boost their commissions.
No doubt your intentions are good, as most salespeople are earnestly trying to provide value to their customers. The challenge is separating yourself from the countless other solicitations potential buyers receive on a daily basis, and then causing decision makers to “want to” engage with you.
Suppose if it were possible to reverse this trend. What if you could create an 80%+ success rate when reaching out to new prospects, rather than continue enduring the typical 90%+ failure rate? How is this possible, you might ask? Acquiring the skills necessary to fill your pipeline faster, and with more qualified prospects, is actually easier than one might think. But, it does require sellers to have an appreciation of next-generation selling skills, which is very different from just trying to ‘buddy’ your way into potential opportunities. There’s no magic, and God knows old-school sales tricks or gimmicks aren’t going to work moving forward. Instead, there are a few very important questions individual sellers (and entire sales teams) should be asking themselves, like:
When you’re on the receiving end of cold calls at home, I bet you’re not excited about giving information to people you don’t yet know and trust. So, why should we expect the old-school mentality of trying to “befriend” prospective customers, if that strategy no longer works on you or me? Hmmm…
As a firm, we have not actively marketed Life Settlements. The lack of regulations within the industry and the stain of the aftermath of STOLI has given us good reasons to stay away. That doesn’t mean we don’t still keep our eye on the industry. Certainly there are some situations where a Life Settlement is the best option for a policyholder.
With that in mind we have been watching closely a Florida Supreme Court case between Prudential and a Life Settlement provider. The case was about “insurable interest” and the carrier was arguing that the new owner of the policy did not have an insureable interest and should not be able to profit from the purchase. Here is the latest result of that case:
Have you been watching the debates? Hard not to, like driving by an accident on the highway you just have to look. I try not to be political in my blog but the debates are just too juicy to pass up. One thing I have been noticing about this election, there don’t seem to be as many “signs” as in other years. I usually see signs and bumper stickers in support of the candidates. While I am seeing a lot of signs for the local candidates I’m not seeing any Clinton or Trump signs. Perhaps the reason is that many are undecided? Or is it that no one wants to be public about who they support?
Wouldn’t it be nice if tonight’s debate just focused on the issues? I have a cousin/friend who had a great idea that will never be implemented. New debate rules.
My fantasy for the final debate: The candidates are NOT allowed to talk about each other. Topics will be limited to real issues: the economy, health care, ISIS, the racial divide, refugees, etc. Responses must be limited to only what he/she proposes to do. If either begins to stray and talks about or attacks the other, his/her microphone is shut off and the rest of his/her time to respond is lost or given to the other. And Bob Schieffer would be moderator.
Since we know this won’t happen, I thought it might help if I reposted each candidates proposal on taxes. At least when you are watching the debate you can have some info that might help you make a choice on policy and not on personality.
|Brighthouse Financial Files Form 10 Registration Statement in Connection with Planned Separation from MetLife|
MetLife, Inc. recently announced that Brighthouse Financial, Inc. filed a Registration Statement on Form 10 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The filing of the Form 10 is an important step in MetLife’s plan to separate into two independent publicly traded companies. The filing provides information on the strategy and historical financial data of Brighthouse Financial and will be updated with additional information in subsequent amendments as the SEC reviews it.
The Form 10 Brighthouse filed reflects MetLife’s current plant to initiate the seperation of Brighthouse in the form of a spin-off. The ultimate form and timing of the transaction will be influenced by a number of factors.