PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 6/12/15 9:07 AM

Received: June 05, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8j98-gwzc

Comments Due: July 06, 2015

Submission Type: API

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-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0309

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: James Christian

Address: 

17595 Kenwood Trail Suite 170

Lakeville, MN, 55044

Email: jim@jcretire.com

Phone: 952-898-3060

Organization: Jim Christian Inc.

General Comment

My input is from the perspective as a 26-year professional financial planner providing advice to 

clients in all aspects of their financial planning. 

It appears the proposed Fiduciary rule is entirely focused on investment costs and is silent on 

value in the eyes of the client. If lowest costs are the sole objective, then the lowest cost 

vehicles, food, attorney, medical services, appliances, clothing and homes would be in the best 

interest of the public too. However, the value a client wants or needs is entirely absent in the 

proposed rule language.

Fees paid to an advisor whether by up-front commissions, trailing commissions, advisory 

(assets under management) or hourly are the clients choices for paying an advisor for services. 

Full disclosure by all advisors of those compensation options along with their respective costs 

and benefits is in the client's best interest. I belong to The Society of Financial Service 

Professionals and we strive to improve the level of ethical behavior by articulating Standards of 

Care. 

Page 1 of 2

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481b1dd31&format=xml&show... 6/12/2015
Financial planning consists of 5 primary planning areas: Protection, Estate, Retirement Income, 

Tax and Investments. The Fiduciary Rule seems to speak only to investment advice. Most if not 

all advisors that use IRAs for clients do comprehensive planning for clients and not just giving 

investment advice. In many cases the investment product simply provides the compensation that 

pays for services in all 5 areas. The method of compensation (commission, advisory, or hourly) 

provides the client choices for compensation to their advisor that best fits their needs and 

preferences so clients are well-served in all 5 areas, not just investment advice. Ask yourself 

this question -Are you willing to spend more on a product or service if you receive greater value 

when you receive full disclosure and knowledge of the costs and benefits? If yes, why then 

would a blanket rule on the lowest cost product be in everyones best interest? 

Unfortunately, there are bad apples in every industry and those egregious cases of unethical 

behavior in financial services somehow become the rallying call that every advisor operates in 

that manner and rules are then established for the lowest common denominator. That is simply 

not the case. Consideration should be given to the smaller number of complaints/egregious 

cases versus the vast majority of advisors providing client value with full disclosure.

Proper planning in all 5 areas can help avoid "harm to clients" and the unforeseen increased 

costs in tax payer paid social welfare benefits by helping reduce insufficient comprehensive 

financial planning by consumers. 

Please dont stay myopic on fees alone and lose sight of the bigger 5-part comprehensive 

financial planning picture. Giving consideration and control to the consumer to make informed 

choices armed with full disclosure for the value they desire is in the best interest of all 

stakeholders. 

Attachments

2015-6-5 Public Input

Page 2 of 2

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481b1dd31&format=xml&show... 6/12/2015