From: Jeffrey McClure [mailto:jeff@tpwc.com] 

Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 11:36 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Cc: staff; Jacob A McClure

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32, Comment on Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement 

Investment Advice and Related Proposed Prohibited Transaction Exemptions

Importance: High

First, please accept my gratitude for a thorough background explanation and the obvious effort 

that went into making this proposed rule. Second, please count this message as an enthusiastic 

“YES” vote for the proposed rules.

I have been in the financial services business for thirty-three years. For the first twenty-five of 

those years I was primarily registered and contractually employed by broker-dealers to sell 

securities products. Since 1991, those broker-dealers, also contractually employed me as a 

branch-office manager and registered securities principal. During the vast majority of those years 

I was additionally employed as an investment advisory representative of the corporate, duallyregistered investment advisor of those broker-dealers. In 2007 my son and I formed an 

independent investment advisory firm registered with the United States Securities and Exchange 

Commission. Two years ago we terminated our relationship with our then-current broker-dealer 

and began a “fee-only” professional existence. As my signature block indicates, I am licensed to 

use the CFP® marks and have been a licensee of the CFP Board of Standards since 1991. 

My perspective on the Proposed Rules is informed by that experience. I have served in a purely 

sales role, including over fifteen years as the manager and supervisor of securities sales-persons, 

and during much of that time, carried the designation and heard the justifications for portraying 

myself and my employing firm as a “trusted adviser” registered as an investment adviser under 

the Investment Advisory Act of 1940. As a CFP “certificant” I am voluntarily subject to a weak 

form of fiduciary duty that specifically excludes the sales process for investment products. Sadly, 

that standard reflects the regular practice of most dually-registered investment advisers, both 

companies and their representatives.

This rule is long overdue, and from my perspective, overly accommodating to the sales forces 

committed to the practice of quickly and profitably converting as much of a plan participant’s 

retirement investments into broker-dealer, investment product, and sales fees and commissions 

as is legal or allowed. I sat through many mandatory-attendance presentations at broker-dealer 

“conferences” in which the “401(k)/403(b) rollover market” was proclaimed as the gold mine of 

the 21st century and how critical it was to portray oneself as a “trusted adviser” in order to 

generate maximum commissions and awards for the sales person. I do understand the reality of 

the political and economic forces that govern society and the need for sales persons, but the sale

of unnecessarily high-cost and high-risk investment products to members of the public who have 

little or no education, experience, or understanding of what they are purchasing is a clear abuse 

of trust. 

My only concern with the new rule is that the disclosures, including the Proposed Best Interest 

Contract Exemption, will simply be one more form signed by the member of the public. The 

existing reams of disclosures, including one that typically states, “Read the prospectus carefully 
prior to investing” are, in my decades of experience, almost never read by the investor. While the 

provision exempting those conflict of interest items and the resulting transactions from any 

arbitration agreement is a plus, it will take a major market decline and large losses for litigators 

to utilize those provisions. It is critical, in my opinion, for FINRA, the SEC, and the EBSA to 

actively and vigorously enforce the rules, presuming they come into force in their present form.

As an example of an area that shows little evidence of change, even in the face of the proposed 

rules, in my experience the education 403(b) market is dominated by astoundingly high-cost, 

high commission products mandated by school officials who routinely are compensated by the 

sales persons and organizations to a degree that would be off limits to even a registered securities 

salesperson with no pretense of fiduciary duty. Unless there is a means of enforcement that 

extends to those school officials and the organizations that sell the products, a large part of the 

ERISA regulated industry will continue to profit from the ignorance and naiveté of the public.

Thank you again for your time and devotion to this issue.

Jeffrey W. McClure CFP®

M.S. Personal Financial Planning

The Personal Wealth Coach®

P.O. Box 1029, 918 N Main Street

Salado, TX 76571

(254) 947-1111 or (800) 914-7526

Jeffrey W. McClure, CFP® and Jacob A. McClure, CIMA®, are the advising and 

managing members of and this message has been sent by and on behalf of The Personal Wealth 

Coach® (“TPWC”), an investment adviser registered with the United States Securities and 

Exchange Commission. Information contained in this message has been obtained from sources 

deemed reasonable but is not warranted or guaranteed to be accurate or complete. Past 

performance is no guarantee of future returns and investments recommended or purchased on 

behalf of a client may be worth more or less than the purchase price when sold. TPWC does not 

provide tax or legal advice. Please consult with a qualified tax or legal adviser for such advice. If 

you have received this message in error, please destroy the message and advise TPWC 

immediately. TPWC will not offer or provide investment advice in any jurisdiction where to do 

so would be a violation of law or regulation.