From: Ronald Johnston [mailto:rjohnston@annuityally.com] 

Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 12:21 PM

To: Mulhall, Tamara - EBSA

Cc: 'Ana Hernandez'; Barbara Treadwell (Business Fax)

Subject: Public comment-The proposed "fiduciary" Rules

Hearing Officer/s:

I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in with a comment on your Agency’s proposed “Fiduciary” 

Rule proposal. First I would like to offer some credibility to my comments. 

1. I am a year old, actively employed senior.

2. I am a past member of the /desert Advisory Council of the DOI 

.

3. I have been an outspoken critic of some of abuses that occur on “Wall Street” and 

served as an industry arbitrator for over 3 decades.

4. I am a licensed and registered principal in the financial services, i.e. securities and 

insurance. Industry for over 4 decades.

This proposed “Fiduciary Rule” is little more, in my opinion, than a self-serving attempt by the 

large commercial banks, attorneys, and a few of the large, SEC registered Investment Advisors, 

to eliminate, or diminish competition in the marketplace, while depriving the smaller investor of 

the opportunity to seek and receive investment guidance from licensed professionals. Any 

Registered Securities person has signed a contract, upon entry into the field, called an RE 1, 

which clearly states that the Representative, though he or she may work for or be associated 

with a Member Firm, will always hold their client’s interests to be foremost in their 

recommendations of advice. This Rule, if the regulatory agencies enforce it, i.e. FINRA and the 

SEC, already has the Rule and tools to regulate and stop abuses. Do abuses exist? They most 

certainly do, and they are most evident in the marketing of “Private Placement REIT’s, Oil and 

Gas partnerships, and Hedge Fund participations. Additionally, Variable Annuities, though a 

registered securities product, are being sold because of the perks and incentives that they offer 

the Broker-Dealer the t Registered sales person, including trailing commissions and fees which 

are deducted from the client’s account values. To attempt to regulate the sale of these less 

than “suitable”, high client commission-cost products as “Safe” 401-K Rollover vehicles is wrong 

in itself and closing the door to competition, so that the sales people who work for commercial 

banks, which now, because of the demise of Glass-Steagel, have gotten into the securities and 

insurance industries, can sell these products because they are “Fiduciaries”, is just allowing the 

fox further into the hen house. The argument will be made, by the banks, that “our sales 

people are salaried, hence they have no commission incentive”. Pish posh. I have worked with 

banks, and though the Registered person is salaried, the bank itself will collect the fees and 

incentivize the sales agent by recognizing them at luncheons, giving them bonuses and trips, or 

letting them keep their jobs. This is nothing more than a scam that I would hope your agency 

can see beyond. The DOL has already dropped the ball, decades ago, by allowing brokerage 

firms and banks to escape liability for payroll taxes, Medicare Taxes, and local taxes by letting 

them treat Registered persons, whom they totally control, act as Independent Contractors. 

Please don’t fall into another trap, laid by the big banks, which will cost the public trillions of 

dollars and only worsen the problem. Below is an excerpt of a letter which I have sent to 

Senator Warren and President Obama. I hope that you will investigate further before ruling on 

this issue, and if you do, will see why this proposed Rule should be abandoned. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Ronald V. Johnston

4455 Arch St.

San Diego, CA 92116

619-840-1479

rjohnston@annuityally.com

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 

www.avast.com