-----Original Message-----

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: Comments on Fiduciary Standard Rule (RIN 1210-AB32)

Dear Thomas Perez,

I want to express my deep concern about the Department of Labor’s proposed fiduciary rule. As a 

trusted life insurance professional, I support efforts to ensure customers’ best interests are served. Yet 

average Americans will bear the burden of this complex and unworkable rule by having significantly less 

access to professional financial advice and fewer options to save for retirement. 

The DOL Proposal Would Reduce Consumer Choice and Access to Professional Financial Advice for 

Average Retirement Savers

Quite simply, this rule will raise product costs, reduce consumer choice, and limit access to professional 

advice for retirement savers that need it the most—from excessive disclosure and data keeping 

requirements to provisions that prevent small businesses from providing their employees with 

affordable retirement savings vehicles.

Let me share just a couple of specific real-world scenarios: 

- In my practice, when a current or prospective client contacts me, I can answer their questions and 

provide guidance about investment options, including examples of assets or asset classes. Under the 

proposal, before any advice is provided to a saver or specific products to help them in retirement are 

discussed, they would have to sign a complex legal document. In my experience, few people are likely to 

read, sign, and return such a contract before any substantive discussion. 

- When an individual nearing retirement asks about their options for their qualified account, I normally 

walk them through their various options—including rollovers—and discourage them from simply taking 

a lump sum payment that they might outlive or might not best serve their needs. However, since there 

is no exemption for rollover or distribution advice, I would be unable to answer any questions or provide 

any advice about a course of action—resulting in significantly less professional financial advice for many 

average retirement savers during the most important financial decisions of their lives.

DOL Proposal Would Undermine Model Used By Most Average Savers to Receive Advice and Service

Registered investment advisors receiving flat fees don’t typically serve small accounts, but rather focus 

on wealthier clients. Further, individuals may prefer a single point in time payment over ongoing, annual 

fees that can be far more expensive. This unworkable rule is not compatible with commission-based 

business models in the life insurance and broader brokerage industry, as FINRA CEO Rick Ketchum 

himself has noted—resulting in significantly less choice and access to professional advice for average 

savers. 

Lifetime Income Products Are Particularly Disadvantaged
The DOL proposal makes it impossible to provide average savers with annuities that provide guaranteed 

lifetime income. In essence, this rule removes the only choices consumers have for both managing the 

risk of outliving their money and the risk of retiring just before a major market crisis. 

This is particularly troubling because Americans are facing a looming retirement crisis. Retirees are living 

longer than ever, yet 40 million households have saved nothing for retirement—making this the exact 

wrong time to be restricting access to savings products. The importance of annuities for retirement 

savers was recognized by the Treasury Department in 2014, when it finalized regulations intended to 

increase the sale of annuities to qualified retirement accounts. The DOL proposal directly contradicts 

this Treasury initiative. 

Alternatives to the Current DOL Proposal Haven’t Been Explored

The Department of Labor has failed to explore alternative methods for enhancing investor 

understanding. For example, in February 2012 the DOL issued final 408(b)(2) disclosure rules requiring 

advisors to more clearly disclose their services, responsibilities, and fees to qualified plans. Sufficient 

time should be given to evaluate the effectiveness of this regulation, especially considering the 

enormous amount of time and resources recently committed to compliance. If these rules are found to 

be insufficient, then it would seem appropriate to build on these rather than adding another layer of 

costly and confusing regulation—particularly since the trend under these rules seems to be toward 

greater fiduciary relationships while preserving consumer choice. 

The DOL Needs to Appreciate the Impacts of its Proposal and Fundamentally Rethink Its Approach

This rule will significantly limit my ability to provide educational information, professional financial 

advice, and critical savings products to retirement savers that need them the most. Given the many 

problems with the proposed rule as written, I ask you to work with life insurance agents like me to 

develop a workable approach which ensures that average savers can continue to get the advice and 

retirement savings products they need. I am member of the AALU, who will be providing a formal 

comment letter that will provide additional detail about the problems with this rule.

Sincerely,