From: Sheryl Garrett [mailto:Sheryl@GarrettPlanning.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 4:58 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Cc: Sheryl Garrett

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

I’m writing to express my support for the DOL rule making proposal. The Committee for The 

Fiduciary Standard and Professor Ron Rhoades drafted comment letters regarding the details of 

the DOL fiduciary rule making proposal and I share their viewpoints. But, I also want to also 

share my personal perspective.

The current rules governing retirement plan assets were written 40 years ago and they’re not kept 

pace with the changing ways Americans now save and invest for retirement. Pension plans have 

been replaced by IRAs and 401(k)’s, which didn’t exist 40 years ago. As a result, most workers 

and retirees make all the decisions about their retirement plan and investments. These options 

are critically important and often confusing. Those saving for retirement, or getting ready to 

make an important rollover decision, need objective advice more than ever.

Unless the DOL rule is updated and broadened as proposed, many workers and retirees will 

continue to be vulnerable to conflicted advice from brokers who are not legally obligated to put 

their clients’ best interest first.

In a survey conducted by the Financial Planning Coalition/CFA/NASAA showed that 97% of 

investors agree that “when you receive investment advice from a financial professional, the 

person providing the advice should put your interests ahead of theirs...”

But that’s not the law of the land – and the American public doesn’t know this!

Americans pay a heavy price – amounting to tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost 

retirement income – as a consequence of the status quo, which permits so called “trusted” 

financial advisors to profit at their clients’ expense.

I’ve seen this time and again in my 28 years in this business. This first 18 years I worked as a 

personal financial advisor, first as a registered representative and eventually as an hourly, fee-
only advisor. Throughout most of this time I served Middle Income individual and 

families. My primary activity over the last 15 years has been spent consulting and coaching 

other financial planners and advisors who serve middle market clients. Over the last 10 years 

I’ve also served as a litigation consultant and expert witness on cases involving brokers and 

advisors who allegedly rendered inappropriate advice to their clients.

I’ve witnessed cases involving dozens of individuals who were inappropriately “advised” to take

an early retirement rollover from their company sponsored pension plan and invest the funds 

with someone they believed to be a competent and trusted advisor. Now these individuals are in 

their 60’s and financially devastated. They entrusted their entire retirement nest egg to 

“advisors” that did not put their best interest first.

Virtually every financial advisor I’ve ever spoken with (thousands) has witnessed cases of 

financial abuse at least once if not dozens of times. Sometime the “advice” rendered has caused 

devastating harm, even if determined “Suitable”, and other time the harm is much less, and often 

goes undetected by the investor.

Most financial advisors do have their client's best interests in mind, however most are not legally 

obligated to put their client's best interests first. Many of these advisors are ready, willing and 

able to serve as fiduciary advisors, even with those individuals of modest means, but often their 

companies do not support this change, as it will impact the company's bottom line. If certain 

"advisors" and their companies don't want to be held to the fiduciary standard, they must stop 

holding themselves out as advisors!

One very important thing I’ve learned is that the “buck stops” with the fiduciary. Not only is a 

fiduciary required to put their client’s best interests first, in the event of a compliant, it’s the 

fiduciary’s obligation to prove they acted in their client’s best interest. With brokers the worker 

or retiree who entrusted their nest egg to this individual or firm must prove that they were in 

some way harmed by the broker. These individuals didn’t know who to turn to initially when 

they needed advice and we’re expecting them to be able to recognize when their “trusted” broker 

didn’t act in their best interest? This has to change!

Workers and retirees need access to competent, objective financial advice and they need to be 

able to trust and rely upon that advice. This is the basis of fiduciary duty.
I believe that anyone who holds themselves out as an advisor (e.g. renders advice) should be held 

to the fiduciary standard, and thank goodness the proposed law also includes advice on rollovers 

from qualified plans. That is what the public needs, deserves and expects!

Thank you,

Sheryl Garrett, CFP®, AIF®

Founder

Making Competent, Objective Financial Advice Accessible

(913) 268-1500 Ext. 102 | website | @SherylGarrett

NOTICE: This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or 

distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or if you believe that you have received this communication in 

error, please contact the sender via reply email and delete this communication. Thank you.