Willing Fiduciary

With whom do you work?

Month: September 2016

Fiduciary Dilemma: Is your Clearing Firm transferring their risk to you?

In the Financial Services Industry, it is not enough to fulfill Fiduciary obligations in isolation. Business partners must be committed to this standard as well. Clearing Firms and associated technology must enable a Fiduciary to meet client obligations.

Like Employer Sponsors of Retirement Plans, Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs) are responsible for monitoring investment “content” and provider oversight. Each provider agreement must be reviewed carefully as it has a tendency to morph in heightened regulatory environments.

Predictably, attempts to transfer various types of risk become visible during contract renewals or amendments. Without warning, terms like “custody,” “technology integration,” and “client data” become legal ambiguities and justifications to shift risk to the Independent Broker Dealer or RIA. These risks are inherent to their business. Are Clearing Providers no longer responsible for custody, settlement, payments, wire transfers, and their own business partners that facilitate these functions?

The Fiduciary has a legal and ethical duty to oversee the integrity of their business partners to protect the interest of their clients. According to Black’s Law Dictionary a Fiduciary is a person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that of a trustee, in respect to the trust and confidence involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and candor which it requires. Is your Clearing Firm enabling you to do so for your clients?

Litigation Failure: White vs. Chevron Corp

Even though the allegations may be sound, the conclusions may not be supported with the sufficient facts “to infer that the fiduciaries had breached their fiduciary duties.”

Though the plaintiffs have until September 30th to amend the complaint, such is the recent case, White Vs. Chevron Corp.

The plaintiffs argued:
. the wrong types of investments were offered rather than “others” (they offered investments with higher expenses/expense rations while similar investments were available with lower expense/expense ratios)
. there were revenue sharing relationships based on AUM (as the plan grows, the charges increase) instead of a per participant basis
. failure of oversight (a poor performing investment option should have been removed earlier)

These are all sound reasons that cause “suspicions or inferences of fiduciary breaches” but none are demonstrative that one has occurred. Conclusive evidence must be provided as to how these allegations prove that the participant’s interest didn’t come first in content and oversight.

This story exemplifies the reasons why Attorneys need someone with experience in Portfolio Construction, Financial Technology/Analytics, and Legal Application expertise to support their allegations.

Fiduciary Herein Granted

Is there any doubt what the Founding Fathers intended in the very first Article and Section of our Constitution?

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

HEREIN GRANTED which indicates possessing only specified or enumerated powers whereby the stated body CAN NOT claim an unlimited, inherit, or elastic authority to legislate. Our government wields only such power as the people ENTRUST to it.

As to entrust and to accept, a specified office or Fiduciary Duty involving trust. In matters of right, sovereignty, legality, and crucial advice should anyone accept anything less than Fiduciary Herein Granted? Could accountable Fiduciary Relationships be the brick and mortar to the sustainability of a relationship? Company? Nation? Herein Granted!

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén