日韩色综合-日韩色中色-日韩色在线-日韩色哟哟-国产ts在线视频-国产suv精品一区二区69

手機(jī)APP下載

您現(xiàn)在的位置: 首頁 > 在線廣播 > PBS高端訪談 > PBS訪談社會(huì)系列 > 正文

PBS高端訪談:你還信任你的財(cái)務(wù)顧問嗎?

編輯:max ?  可可英語APP下載 |  可可官方微信:ikekenet
  


掃描二維碼進(jìn)行跟讀打分訓(xùn)練

GWEN IFILL: But, first, a battle is brewing over proposed rules about the advice that financial advisers can give their customers.

The fight is one of several big dividing lines this week on Capitol Hill, and it's spilled into the spending standoff as well. The deadline to pass a new spending bill is tomorrow.

William Brangham has been speaking with several of the key players as we get closer to the deadline, and he joins me now.

So, this has finally percolated its way to Congress, but what is at the root of this dispute, William?

你還信任你的財(cái)務(wù)顧問嗎?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The root of this dispute is that the Department of Labor wants to change the rules governing retirement advisers.

And these are people you go to if you need help with your 401(k) or rolling over your IRA, things like that. And the Department of Labor wants to change it so that all these advisers have to have what is called the best interests of their client at heart.

Now, many of us might think, well, doesn't my adviser already have my best interest at heart? And most of them do, but not all of them, and not all of them are legally required to do so.

So, that can sometimes mean that you might get sold a plan that has a lot of higher fees that is maybe not the best plan for your retirement future. And so the Department of Labor wants to say, OK, put your clients' interests ahead of you, ahead of your own across the board.

And, yesterday, I talked to the labor secretary, Thomas Perez, and here's what he had to say about this.

THOMAS PEREZ, Secretary of Labor: This is not a case of people with malice in their heart who are trying to screw people. This is a case about a system that's structurally flawed.

The incentives are misaligned. Under the current standard, which is a so-called suitability standard, I can have four or five different products that are so-called suitable for you. And what happens? Well, the product that generates the most commission for the salesperson is the product that invariably gets sold.

And so the consumer loses, and the salesperson wins.

GWEN IFILL: So, William, the consumer loses and the salesperson wins, as Secretary Perez says. How much money are we talking about here?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The White House estimates that $17 billion is lost every single year by advisers who are getting what they call this conflicted advice, where you're sold something where the fees are higher than they should be or that is just not the optimal plan for you.

And the complicated issue here is that there is a dizzying array of retirement options out there. And it's very difficult for people to know where to turn, so naturally they seek advice.

One of the advocates that I spoke with likened this to when you're driving down the road in your car, and, all of a sudden, you hear a big bang coming out of your engine. You take it to one mechanic and he says, that's $1,500 because you have got to replace your transmission.

Take it to another mechanic, he says, oh, it's $1.99 for a spark plug.

Unless you're an auto mechanic, you just don't know, well, who's right and who's wrong. And some of the advocates argue that financial advice is the same way.

Dennis Kelleher, the CEO of an advocacy group called Better Markets, put this way.

DENNIS KELLEHER, President, Better Markets: So, it's perfectly reasonable to get advice for such complex matters. The problem is that it's not transparent.

You — the person doesn't know, what are the 20 or 30 different types of products available? What are the fees? How do they perform over time? And am I getting a high-cost product that's going to perform poorly or a low-cost product that will perform better? And you are never going to know because you never see the alternative.

GWEN IFILL: The industry obviously is not taking this lying down. They are going to continue to fight this, and they're spending a lot of money on it.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The industry has spent already millions of dollars trying to torpedo these rules.

They put a rider in the current omnibus spending bill that is going to try to eliminate the ability of the Department of Labor to introduce this, and they are arguing that these rules are unnecessary, that they're going to overly burden the industry, people will not get the advice that they need, and that this is just an unnecessary set of rules.

GWEN IFILL: You talked to Kevin Mayeux, the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisers spokesmen. Let's hear what he said.

KEVIN MAYEUX, National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisers: Financial advisers that are successful are constantly acting in the best interests of their clients, because, if they weren't, they wouldn't be in business anymore.

There is already ample opportunity to discipline bad actors. And the cost of the complying with a complex federal regulation that is 1,000 pages in length is just going to make it prohibitive for companies to put their advisers on the street to help clients and for advisers to be able to access clients to give them an array of options from which they can choose.

GWEN IFILL: When the industry talks about the cost of compliance, how burdensome are they saying these regulations would be?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: They say that they are very burdensome. They say this is 1,000 pages of regulations, and maybe big firms can handle the compliance costs of that, but smaller advisers can't, and that some of those advisers might look at this and say, I'm getting out of this business.

GWEN IFILL: So, what do you if you're something who is just depending on your financial adviser to handle your nest egg? What do you do now?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Well, if you really want to know whether or not they're looking out for you, you can ask.

It's an awkward conversation, but you can literally say to your adviser, do you have the legal obligation to look out for my best interests? Now, if they say, I don't have the legal obligation, it doesn't mean they are going to try swindle you necessarily.

But if they say they do have that obligation, then chances are you can be more comfortable with that. But if you already have a plan, and you're wondering, was this a good plan, did I get sold a bill of goods, you can take it to someone like a certified financial planner or a registered financial adviser, people who do have that legal obligation, and say, review this for me. Tell me, is this a good plan for me or not?

GWEN IFILL: William Brangham, thank you very much.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Thank you.

重點(diǎn)單詞   查看全部解釋    
alternative [ɔ:l'tə:nətiv]

想一想再看

adj. 兩者擇一的; 供選擇的; 非主流的

聯(lián)想記憶
planner ['plænə]

想一想再看

n. 計(jì)劃者,規(guī)劃師

 
discipline ['disiplin]

想一想再看

n. 訓(xùn)練,紀(jì)律,懲罰,學(xué)科
vt. 訓(xùn)練,懲

聯(lián)想記憶
unnecessary [ʌn'nesisəri]

想一想再看

adj. 不必要的,多余的

 
regulation [.regju'leiʃən]

想一想再看

n. 規(guī)則,規(guī)章,管理
adj. 規(guī)定的,官方

 
acting ['æktiŋ]

想一想再看

n. 演戲,行為,假裝 adj. 代理的,臨時(shí)的,供演出

 
invariably [in'vɛəriəbli]

想一想再看

adv. 不變化地,一定不變地,常常地

 
perform [pə'fɔ:m]

想一想再看

v. 執(zhí)行,運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn),舉行,表演

聯(lián)想記憶
complicated ['kɔmplikeitid]

想一想再看

adj. 復(fù)雜的,難懂的
動(dòng)詞complica

 
array [ə'rei]

想一想再看

n. 數(shù)組,(陳)排列,大批,一系列
vt.

聯(lián)想記憶
?

最新文章

可可英語官方微信(微信號(hào):ikekenet)

每天向大家推送短小精悍的英語學(xué)習(xí)資料.

添加方式1.掃描上方可可官方微信二維碼。
添加方式2.搜索微信號(hào)ikekenet添加即可。
主站蜘蛛池模板: 河南卫视直播| xiuren秀人网最新地址| 一夜风流| 阴道| 佐格| 快点啊啊啊| 美女撒尿全过程免费| 三上悠亚在线免费观看| 久久日韩成人影院绝色| 宋恩彩为艺术奉献的作品有哪些| 王宝强电影全部作品| 龙八夷| hello小姐 电视剧| 高尔夫频道| 神迹电影| 宋学士濂文言文翻译| 梁祝《引子》简谱| 抖音电脑版| www.douyin.com/pay| 2024微信头像| 赵立军| 延边卫视节目表今天| 东方卫视节目表| 香港之夜电视剧免费播放国语版| 怀孕被打肚子踩肚子踹肚子压肚子视频 | 玫瑰的故事图片| 小麦进城电视剧| 1988版14集电视剧平凡的世界| 新红楼梦电影| 电影暗夜| 秀人网 官网门户免费| 守护人 电视剧| 潘馨| 情人意大利| 在线免费电影| 王芊| 经典伦理电影| 五年级上册写字表拼音| 逆光飞翔 电影| 寡妇激情| 情事:秘密情事|