From: bjlwhitleys@juno.com [mailto:bjlwhitleys@juno.com] 

Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 2:00 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Cc: michelle.singletary@washpost.com

Subject: RIN1210-AB32

As a 21 year member of The National Association of Insurance & Financial Advisers (NAIFA), I 

have obviously been lobbied on the "fiduciary vs suitability" proposal. I hold Series 6, 63, and 

65 securities licenses as well as a Florida Life & Health insurance license, so I am already 

subject to both requirements. I do believe, however, that everyone is missing the real objective.

For those who are familiar with the branches of the military, you know that all training, 

procedures, planning, and execution is directed towards "achieving the mission". We call it 

"objectives" in our business. I believe that focusing on the best financial advice and products to 

achieve a client's objectives should be our true goal. 

I have worked in the financial services industry since 1973 and have learned that, other than 

investing in one's own company or business, there are basically four reasons why people 

save/invest money. The first is for a specific purpose like an emergency fund, a down payment 

for a home, saving for college, vacations, holidays, birthdays, taxes, insurance, etc. An account 

is usually established for that purpose and then spent on that purpose when the time comes. I 

think this first reason requires savings/investment accounts with more safety and 

guarantees. There is little sense in assuming much risk, unless you have a long term time 

horizon, i.e college savings account for a newborn.

The second reason is to provide future income when one is no longer able or desires to work, i.e 

retirement. This accounts for the bulk of the invested dollars in our country today, and is the 

most important. We are living longer as a population and most lack the old fashion pension plan 

to pay our bills after we retire (voluntarily or involuntarily). Advisers and consumers should 

both change their focus from the old ROI (return on investment) to the new ROI (reliability of 

income). I believe you can define the objective of retirement planning in three words, "enough 

lifetime income". We will be less concerned about the balance in our 401K or IRA account than 

we will about the amount of income it will pay us for the rest of our (and our spouse's) 

life. There are only three sources of guaranteed lifetime income - Social Security, the old 

fashion pension plan, and life insurance annuities in several forms (SPIAs and those with income 

riders). Raising the costs of providing these annuity products would not be good governmental 

policy.

The third reason (only after enough money has been allocated to meet the first two objectives), is 

to pass to our heirs or charities because we are so inclined. This objective allows for for more 

aggressiveness, but should also consider time horizon, risk tolerance, taxation, and guarantees 

demanded by the heirs or charities.

The only other (4th) reason I can think of is to just see how much money we can make in the 

market or speculate, i.e Gordon Gecko in the movie "Wall Street". This objective allows for as 

much aggressiveness as anyone's risk tolerance will tolerate. Greed has no boundaries and 

deserves no rescue.
Once an adviser determines the client's true objective, then they should narrow down the 

appropriate investment options for that purpose and decide which one is most likely to achieve 

the objective. There are appropriate products for each of these reasons. I suspect that most of 

the cases where investors file complaints about their investment failures are due to picking 

products to meet the fourth category objective when they should be picking products that will 

meet one of the other three objectives. We all must remember that risk and return go hand in 

hand. I have read several reports that indicate more money being lost by Registered Investment 

Advisers under the fiduciary requirement than agent/brokers under the suitability 

requirement. So who should you crack down on the most?

Regulators might want to consider the military approach of "achieving the objective" when 

finalizing their reforms, remembering that when you get away from the guarantees in bank and 

insurance products, there are no guarantees. Even with diversification, asset allocation, 

rebalancing, Monte Carlo simulations, and all the other money management strategies, no one 

has developed a crystal ball to predict the future. Otherwise, it would be on sale at Walmart, and 

all advisers and investors would have one.

Bobby Whitley, LUTCF

7223 S. Leewynn Dr.

Sarasota, Fl 34240

(941) 379-3764

bjlwhitleys@juno.com

www.bwhitleyfinancial.com (temporarily closed until new Broker/Dealer is finalized, hopefully, 

by end of month)