From: Megan Rouse [mailto:megan@meganrousefinancialplanning.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 4:34 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

July 21, 2015

Office of Regulations and Interpretations

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Attn: Conflict of Interest Rule, Room N-5655

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue NW.

Washington, DC 20210

RE: RIN 1210-AB32

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I am a registered investment advisor and a consumer advocate. I fully support a uniform fiduciary 

standard. I do not support the DOL proposal in its current form. It simultaneously goes too far and 

doesn’t go far enough -- creating a layer of red tape bureaucracy for financial planners and investment 

advisers, while not providing American consumers the comprehensive best-interest advice they should be 

entitled to. 

I support a uniform fiduciary standard. I already have a fiduciary relationship with each and every 

client, by law and by choice. I am a registered investment advisor, and thus am a fiduciary to my client 

every time I provide investment (or any) advice. I am registered with the state of California and file annual 

amendments through FINRA, adhere to the SEC laws covering investment advisors which demand 

always giving objective advice in the client’s best interest and disclosing anything and everything that 

could be perceived to suggest otherwise. I charge only an hourly rate or a project rate and my fees never 

depend on investment decisions or client actions. Additionally, I am a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL 

PLANNERTM practitioner and as such have voluntarily committed to uphold the fiduciary standard and 

always act in the best interest of my clients. 

The suitability standard is inadequate: it does not protect the American consumer from advice that is not 

in their best interest. In the vast world of financial professionals, there are many instances where clients 

do not necessarily receive advice that is in their best interest -- costing them both money and peace of 

mind. I am pleased that we are looking to address this; however I support a uniform fiduciary standard 

rather than the current DOL proposal. 

Having a fiduciary standard that only covers retirement accounts is a clear under-reach and will 

not adequately serve consumers. It is like remodeling your home and allowing your licensed contractor 

to follow municipal building codes on the first floor but not the upstairs. Or, using healthcare as an 

example, what if consumers had health coverage for their bodies expect their right arm and left foot. How 

would you address a circulatory problem, since it goes through the entire body? The same is true for 

financial planning. A comprehensive financial plan looks at all aspects of one’s financial position. 

Additionally, the DOL proposal creates a sense of security and trust that may be a disadvantage at some 

point to the consumer. Let’s say a couple is saving for retirement and working with a financial adviser 

(not an investment adviser) who prior to the rule would have been subject to the suitability 

standard. Under the new rule, the advice given to the couple for their retirement accounts will be subject 

to the fiduciary standard, and I would imagine there is a discussion between the adviser and the clients 

about the fiduciary standard, and that the adviser is regulated under the Department of Labor rule. I 

would image this creates a sense of trust, of endorsement in some sense, that the government is 

ensuring their adviser is truly working for them. However, in this case there is no fiduciary rule for the 529 
plans they end up talking about, or the home loan, or the life insurance, or the non-retirement brokerage 

account. Is it realistic to expect the client to switch gears quickly and understand the difference between 

the interests, that some of the advice is in their best interest while some may not be? Now fast-forward to 

post retirement, the assets come out of the retirement accounts through distributions, and are no longer 

covered by the DOL rule. Is it realistic to think that most clients will wholly understand that the 30+ year 

relationship that was regulated by the DOL is now different based on the location of their assets, and no 

longer subject to the fiduciary standard? 

The DOL proposal overreaches by creating a complex structure of additional regulation that is 

imposed on financial professionals who are already acting in the best interest of clients at all 

times. It is not clear to me how I will ensure compliance with the many new rules and regulations that do 

not change my behavior (remember, I am already a fiduciary to all my clients at all times for all of their 

investment advice and planning). As a fiduciary under ERISA do I have additional disclosure obligations 

relative to the retirement plan or fund lineup? What are they? Do I need an additional contract to provide 

investment advice to a client I already have a contract with? Do we need an additional contract with the 

custodian? Who will answer these questions, and others? In my view, it is unreasonable and impractical 

for a sole proprietor who is already a fiduciary to obtain legal counsel to be certain I am in compliance. 

Why should I be regulated under an additional layer of rules and requirements, to continue to be a 

fiduciary? How does that serve consumers? 

How to amend the rule to address the undue burden on existing fiduciaries: I strongly encourage 

you to provide an immediate and clear exemption from any DOL proposed rule for anyone who is already 

a fiduciary for the duration of their fiduciary relationship. If at any time in the future they ceased to be the 

fiduciary, then one would immediately be subject to the DOL rule and have 30 days to get into full 

compliance with the rule, and disclose to their clients such. 

In conclusion, I support the effort to ensure all Americans receive objective advice in their best 

interest. I urge you to amend the DOL proposal. At a minimum, please amend this rule so it does not 

place undue burden on and interfere with the ability of advisers who are already acting as fiduciaries and 

providing advice in the best interest of their clients. And I strongly urge you to consider a comprehensive 

approach that enforces a uniform fiduciary standard across all adviser-client relationships, in all accounts, 

at all times. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Kind regards,

Megan Rouse, CFP ® 

Dublin, CA 94568

--

Megan Rouse, CFP® 

Megan Rouse Financial Planning

(925) 999 - 8293

megan@MeganRouseFinancialPlanning.com