From: Rob Shaw [mailto:robs@cfu.net] 

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 10:16 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

I am writing to ask that the Department of Labor drop its proposed fiduciary

rule and defer to the SEC to further the rulemaking process.

As someone who can act as a fiduciary or under the suitability standard,

I believe this rule will be extremely harmful to lower and middle class investors.

The rule at its source is based on slanted, cherry-picked research which

completely ignores the value of financial advisors. This is not to mention

the insulting "snake-oil" comments and the ridiculous math that numerous

others have already debunked. The private sector has invested billions

in putting competing financial advisors in virtually every small town in 

America. Most of the smaller investors need to be personally recruited,

coached and walked through the long process of financial planning and

saving for retirement. The DOL already has research it apparently

ignored and well as slighting hordes of academic research showing

the value of working with advisors. 

"Conflicted" advice needs to be accepted as part of the process of

a consumer shopping for advice and investments. Mr. Perez's examples

of physicians and lawyers not being conflicted is ridiculous as physicians

operate on a multitude of different pay scales and advice levels and lawyers

can operate on contingency fees which is about as conflicted as you can get.

This rule would crush consumer choice, and IRA holders will be livid with

losing their ability to keep their planners or products. Right now, consumers

can chose a fiduciary if they wish or choose to invest in index funds with

John Bogle, who helped draft this legislation which would benefit his company.

Those are fine choices. However, this law would harm the majority of IRA

investors who have chosen their own planners or brokers.

For some reason the DOL is intent on Walmartizing the fee structure

on IRAs. It seems strange that the labor unions and consumer federation

groups that normally support small business are backing this destructive

rule. The government should not be pushing index investing which is proven

to be riskier in down markets to retirees and trashing annuity investments

which provide safety. In addition, forcing small and middle class investors

to go to fiduciary fee programs will be much more costly to them than

the traditional broker route.

Plus, the consumer will now be subject to the incredibly onerous BIC contract before 

even discussing retirement

planning. Clients who have been happy for decades will now have

to be dragged in to sign contracts for investments they already
know they are happy with. They will then have to understand that

if they have non-IRA money, they could have the option to buy

products which would essentially be banned in their IRA accounts...

products they like and have had success with. I heard one advisor

say this is the "New Coke" of regulations and that is appropriate.

This is not a problem that needs this drastic of changes.

I also believe this will harm the advice business as the cost of compliance will skyrocket 

and

drive more brokers out of the retirement market when they are needed

the most. In my state alone some are estimating the costs to be tens of millions of 

wasted

dollars.

One client asked me why they are subjected to rules under the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act when they are no longer an employee?

ERISA 401(K) rules should not govern individual IRAs. 

In summary, The DOL does not the experience in making these

types of decisions and should relent and let the SEC work on rules

to differentiate between fiduciary and suitability standards. 

Robert Shaw

Owner, Robert Shaw Financial Services

Cedar Falls, IA