PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/21/15 

Received: July 20, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8k37-zc98

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related 

Proposed Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2551

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Colin Robertson

Address: 

21 Windwhisper Lane

Annapolis, 21403

Email: colinmrobertson@gmail.com

Phone: 4105073882

General Comment

Dear Secretary Perez:

Thank you for seeking practical input on how to develop a best interest

standard. I'm concerned that the current proposal is unworkable. The

proposal contains provisions that will have the unintended consequence of

leaving many retirement savers without access to professional education,

advice and services.

American investors need reliable education, affordable retirement advice

and clear and easily understood disclosure.

Unfortunately, the current draft:
- Prohibits an advisor from providing advice to plan sponsors under a

commission arrangement - meaning that the employer must pay using a

fee-for-service arrangement.

- Narrowly defines investment education, which will limit the assistance

advisors can provide without triggering fiduciary obligations.

- Does not allow advisors to receive third party compensation when

advising plan participants on distribution options.

- Creates an inoperable Best Interest Contract Exemption (BIC) - a new

exemption that would allow otherwise prohibited compensation such as

commissions and 12b-1 fees, but is complicated, confusing to consumers,

costly and in some respects, impossible to comply with.

- Limits third party for variable annuities and fixed annuities with

different rules depending upon whether in an IRA or in other qualified

plans.

In order to make the proposal workable for savers and retirees, I urge the

Department to make the following changes:

- Permit third party compensation models when working with businesses that

sponsor retirement savings plans.

- Broaden the education provision, especially with respect to the timing

of an advice conversation proceeding to the mention of specific investment

products. Advisors and consumers must be able to discuss together

specific investment choices prior to the point at which a recommendation

is made and a specific choice is contemplated.

- Clarify BIC exemption language to encompass advice on plan distributions

and rollovers. It must be clear that advice in these situations can be

compensated by commissions, 12b-1 fees, and fee sharing if the terms of

the BIC exemption are satisfied.

- Simplify the contract requirements and eliminate the burdensome data

retention and cumulative disclosure requirements. The contract should be

executable once a full review of the client's circumstances, goals,

objectives and financial options has been discussed and a decision has

been made as to a course of action.

- Resolve the conflict between the rules in its BIC PTE proposal and

SEC/FINRA rules, address the parties-in-interest/self-dealing rule issues

that particularly impact fixed and variable annuities, explicitly allow
proprietary products, and captive as compared to independent advisors.

I urge the Department of Labor to re-write this unworkable rule to achieve

our mutual goal of an effective best interest standard that will retain

access to affordable professional advice.

Sincerely,

Colin Robertson

4105073882