PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/5/15 10:52 AM

Received: June 30, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jpu-iujn

Comments Due: July 06, 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-2010-0050-0204

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

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0344

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Cindy Schaus

Address: 

625 North Oaks Drive

Pella, IA, 50219

Email: cynthiamarieschaus@gmail.com

Phone: 6417803954

General Comment

Re: RIN 1210:AB32

Conflict of Interest Rule

Please accept the following as my comments for the current proposal by the Department of 

Labor regarding their view on a conflict of interest rule:

There are a number of issues with the DOLs current proposal, and additional review and 

feedback is necessary to develop a more relevant and optimal rule that serves the best interest of 

everyone, including main street investors and the independent financial professionals they trust 

for objective advice. This proposal seems to be on a fast track that is not moving in accordance 

with the best interests of the retail client. Following are highlights of the additional effort 

needed:

1. The effort must focus on a carefully-crafted, Universal Fiduciary Standard that is applicable 

to all professionals offering personalized investment advice to retail clients; without 

compromising the clients ability to choose and obtain guidance from an advisor they trust.

2. Regulation is in this area should make it easier for investors, not harder, to seek and receive 

Page 1 of 2

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481b60430&format=xml&showo... 7/5/2015
quality investment advice that is customized for their goals.

3. Improved disclosures that add clarity and help retail clients make informed decisions without 

adding unnecessary confusion which appears to be the case in the current proposal.

4. The current proposal appears to unnecessarily restructure the securities, insurance, and 

banking industries without properly engaging the regulatory entities such as the SEC and 

FINRA and overlooking redress already in place. This proposal is far too complex to be moving 

so quickly as it will have far reaching unintended consequences.

5. Costs related to implementation of the proposal do not appear to be properly assessed, and 

are understated.

6. The Best Interest Contract Exemption is unworkable for real life.

7. Fiduciary status is relevant and important at point of sale, not point of contact.

8. The propose grandfathering provision penalizes clients and needs to be replaced with a more 

workable, conventional grandfathering clause linked to date of purchase and the applicability 

date of eight months is too short and unreasonable.

Please reconsider these important observations for improvements, refinements, or ideally 

replacement of the current proposal of a conflict of interest rule by the DOL. Many thousands 

of sincere, honest, hardworking professionals in the financial industry and their hundreds of 

thousands of hardworking retail clients that trust and depend on them for financial guidance will 

thank you.

Page 2 of 2

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481b60430&format=xml&showo... 7/5/2015