that infest that site based on their comments

Twenty years ago, mutual fund prospectuses were six pages long. Now they're more than 50 pages.

All this is going to do is add another 10 pages to the thing you get in the mail each year that you don't read anyway. You'll end up paying for it with a higher management fee.

Series VII advisors are already about the most regulated people on the planet. All advisors are already mandated to disclose sales charges and management fees at the point of sale, and they're disclosed again every year in the prospectus. On the positive side, maybe with a longer prospectus there will be more chances for errors and therefore more class action lawsuits, so you may get a $ 4 check in the mail once in a while.

On edit, I don't know what the President is talking about getting paid to steer people to bad investments. Every company I've worked for has a compliance department which makes you document that the investments you recommend are suitable to the particular client. If I sell a penny stock to an 85 year old, I'm going to get a phone call from my compliance person. The President sounds like a person who has not a clue of what he is talking about here. You want to go after something? Go after Best Buy for selling warranties on $ 20 video games. I have worked for more than one financial company, and each one stressed selling the suitable investment for the customer regardless of what it makes for you. Abnd they have people checking to make sure you're doing it.

inform their clients of those conflicts. In addition, there are many hidden fees in a lot of instruments that people are unaware

The only folks that I have heard against this are those in the financial industry, The same folks against Dodd/Frank, and for the repeal of glass steagall.

Sorry, but anything that allows the consumer to be fully informed is a good thing. If people don't read the fine print when they sign a paper that is a different story.

As far as your view that people don't read the disclosures anyway, that is never a smart thing. I always read disclosures and prospectus

Gee, with that logic I guess we assume that people who buy houses don't read the terms at the title company when they sign the loan, or when they buy insurance, or any contract they engage in with another party. They do so at their own peril.

Gee, I guess if someone passes a Series VII that takes care of all the issues. Funny because because all the companies where I have worked I always had to dig and ask questions what the fees associated with those funds were, and some were as high as 2%.

People go to financial advisors, and they should know if the recommendations of where their money goes by that financial advisors, if he has a vested interest where that money goes.

Financial advisors and wall street along with banks have already demonstrated what "stand-up" people they are by almost destroying our economy.

When someone goes to a doctor for a procedure, they would be fools if they don't know the risks or rewards of those procedures.
When people are entrusting their life savings to a financial advisor, your damn right they better know all the conflicts of interest, and it should be made very clear.

As far as your summary that the compliance department always insures that people are not steered to bad investments, that may be your experience, but I have seen enough people who are pushed into investments by brokers to churn their money so they can rack up commissions. I do my trading on line, and do not go through a broker, and haven't for over 40 years, but I can tell you personally, that Merrill Lynch was notorious for that tactic.

Hell, a friend of mine had a bunch of 30 year US notes and bonds paying between 6 to 7%, and after the market melt down, his broker encouraged him to sell those bonds.

Please don't tell me about the integrity of the brokerage houses or banks, I have known too many people who have been burnt by them.
In fact a very close friend of mine does arbitrage between clients and brokers, and there are a lot of horror stories out there

If you don't believe there are financial advisors out there who get extra fees for pushing a client toward a particular investment, I have some swamp land in Arizona to sell you.

since you wrote a long and thoughtful response.

Please understand though that there are very strict rules about what I can and more importantly cannot post on internet forums. It really creates a problem on places like DU where so much horrible financial advice and information is posted. Often times the wrong information is left to stand simply because the people who know the right answer aren't allowed to post.

Just to comment carefully on a few points though.

1. Of course the only people who talk against more regulation are the ones getting regulated. It's kind of the same reason why there can be 14 government programs to do the same thing. Let's say a veterans training program. Let's say there are 14 programs to train veterans to go into teaching. A congressman proposes a 15th program to do the same thing. Will it pass? Of course because who do you want to be? The congressman on a tv ad standing in front of the new veterans training center opening in your district or the congressman watching the tv ad against himself that said "even voted against" a jobs training program for our veterans.

So ask the average person in the mall, "should car dealerships have to disclose more to customers," and who's going to say no? Should dentists disclose more to patients? Who's going to say no?

But hopefully everyone understands that there is a limit to what is effective, cost-effective, even productive. Give a customer a 100 page book of disclosures and I don't know if you're doing any good. Add another 100 pages to it and I'm sure you're doing less good.

But ask the average person if more information should be disclosed and they'll almost always say, why not? It's no trouble to me.

2. This paragraph is difficult. Please don't anyone take this as any kind of financial advice. I don't know anything about anyone's needs, goals, tax status or financial situation. Don't take this as advice to do anything. Talk to a trusted adviser before making any financial or investment decisions.

Bonds pay an interest rate, let's say your friend's 30 year treasuries were paying 7 %. But you don't have to hold them to maturity. You can sell them any day. Let's say you have a 10,000 bond paying a 7 % dividend. You would get 700 a year interest. On your monthly statement there would be an estimated price for the bond which is what they think it would sell for if you sold it to someone else that day. That price could be way above 10,000 or way below.

Just as a theoretical example, maybe you own a 30 year brokered cd that you bought 29 years ago paying 7 % so it has one year left. You could sell it to someone else for the last year. Anyone want to buy a one year cd paying 7 % today? You might get a price of 106 which means someone will give you 10,600 or 6 % of your interest right now to buy your 7 % cd. Why would they do that? Because the 1 % they'd get is still better than what the current rates are. Why would the person sell it? Because they get 6 of their 7 percent interest now and can buy their new car now rather than wait till the cd comes due.

Anyway, when the stock market crashes, you might see bond prices go way, way up at the same time the stock market goes way, way down. The reason is people get scared and flee the stock market. They want the safety of government bonds even if they have to pay huge premiums to get them. Everyone's heard the slogan, "buy low, sell high" but people rarely do it. While I don't know anything about your friend and sure wouldn't presume to offer him advice, I hope this paragraph let's you rethink the criticism of his broker.

I know this is long. It could be much, much longer, but I really need to back out of this discussion. I really don't want to get even close to any line on one of the hundreds of regulations I am subject to.

Again,. please don't take this as investment advice. It is not. Please don't private message me for investment advice or information. I will not answer any such questions for information or advice as I don't know enough about anyone and it could be considered soliciting business by one regulator or another no matter how harmless the question appears..

Limits on what you can say

I agree without a doubt a lot if misleading and incorrect information is propagated not just here at DU, but all over the Internet.

You point is well taken, a 100 page disclosure will not mean much to most people. After all they are written by lawyers. (Small lawyer joke there)

Perhaps what I would like to see, which I suspect the proposed disclosures won't have, is a simplified summary of possible conflicts and fees, followed by the standard disclosure.

A few years back, at least in California, I don't know if it was nation wide, car insurance policies were required to list the coverages in "more plain language", and it was an improvement. Perhaps something like that.

What I should have mentioned was that the treasuries were for income, not to buy or sell them because interest rates were artificially lowered to offset the financial collapse

and as you mentioned factors have to be taken into consideration regarding a persons goals, age, and tolerance for risk

I have no doubt you are one of "the good guys" who try to setup a plan for your customers that works

I was mostly commenting on the few less than scrupulous ones, who hurt it for the good ones

Most important, I suspect it is a moot point. With this Congress I would be surprised if it passed

I appreciated your take

Thanks