May 24, 2012

Regulatory Gap on Financial Planners is A Risk to Consumers

No specific regulations oversee financial planners, leaving consumers to rely on a network of state and federal laws to serve as a watchdog. But an analysis by the Government Accountability Office finds that consumer protection issues are falling through the cracks.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and state security departments all regulate financial planners, since the planners typically provide the same services as investment advisers, broker—dealers, and insurance agents.

Possible conflicts of interest exist if a financial planner recommends a product for which they receive a commission or benefit. Consumers may be unaware that their financial planner is required to act with fiduciary duty, which means they must always serve in their best interest of the client. This is especially confusing to investors when the adviser provides additional services, like insurance products, where they are not required to act in the best interest of the client.

Another concern is the ambiguity of titles and designations used by financial planners. Some titles include financial planner, consultant, adviser or wealth manager. A 2008 survey showed even experienced investors were confused by the variety of titles. The titles “range from those with rigorous competency, practice, and ethical standards and enforcement to those that can be obtained with minimal effort and no ongoing evaluation,” the report said.

The extent of problems is unknown because the SEC does not track complaints, inspections and enforcement actions specific to financial planning services. The ability of regulators to provide oversight is limited due to this lack of information.

As more people take responsibility for their retirement savings, the financial planning industry is expected to grow. Between 2000 and 2008, the number of financial planners increased from 94,000 to 208,400.

The Dodd—Frank Act will increase the number of financial firms that state security departments must oversee, decreasing the workload for the SEC but possibly weakening the amount of oversight that states are able to provide.

FAST FACT: Financial planners are used by 22 percent of households for investment decisions and by 12 percent of households for credit or borrowing decisions.

Following are other new watchdog reports released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), various federal Offices of Inspector General (OIG), and other government entities.

HEALTH CARE

  • Fraud prevention and enforcement efforts in government—provided health care recovered $4 billion in 2010. New rules authorized by the Affordable Care Act helped to prevent fraud in Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). (Department of Health and Human Services)

MISC.

  • A nonprofit in Silver City, N.M. misused $17,000 in stimulus money to renovate its own office. Gila National Forest received $643,000 for trail maintenance and the nonprofit organization was in charge of implementing trial improvements. (USDA Inspector General)
Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Laurel Adams graduated cum laude from the University of Delaware in May of 2010 with majors in international relations, Spanish, and Latin American studies. She interned at Voices Without Borders in Wilmington, Del., and the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. While at the University of Delaware, Adams studied abroad in Argentina, helped start a Spanish conversation club, and served as an editor for the Sigma Iota Rho Journal of International Relations.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.