Home » Archive by Tags

Articles tagged with: Investor protection and corporate governance

AFR Statement: Trump Speech Obscures Agenda Favoring Wall Street
March 1, 2017 – 7:57 pm

When it comes to the economy, unfortunately the President hasn’t drained the swamp. Instead, he is filling the government with Wall Street insiders who are now attacking rules put in place to keep big Wall Street banks and predatory lenders from ripping off consumers and prevent another disastrous financial crisis.

Joint Letter: Public Interest Groups Urge Financial Industry Leaders to Call a Halt to Anti-Investor Tactics of Trade Associations Seeking to Overturn DOL Protections for Retirement Savers
February 9, 2017 – 4:43 pm

“Financial services companies that support giving retirement investors investment advice that is in their best interests should stand up against the aggressive anti-investor lobbying tactics of their trade associations seeking to overturn the Department of Labor’s (DOL) conflict of interest rule, according to three national organizations that have supported DOL efforts to strengthen protections for retirement savers.”

AFR Testimony: Testimony to SEC Investor Advisory Committee Hearing
December 9, 2016 – 4:17 pm

In the new political environment, it is likely that there will be a heavy emphasis on the capital formation mission of the SEC. The IAC should play a critical role in reminding the Commission that investor protection is crucial to stable and effective capital formation. …Improving financial entity disclosures is crucial if we are to improve market discipline for large financial entities and investor discipline for funds.

AFR Statement: House committee votes to undermine Investor safeguards
June 16, 2016 – 10:58 am

“If these measures became law, long and painful experience suggests they would cause capital to move from sound and regulated investments into dangerous and unregulated investments. The net effect would be to weaken regulatory oversight, reduce transparency, and generally undermine the regulatory framework that helped make America’s financial markets the deepest, most vibrant markets in the world.”

AFR Statement: DOL retirement investment rule deserves Senate backing, not blocking
May 24, 2016 – 1:28 pm

The Senate will vote today on a resolution to disapprove the Department of Labor’s rule requiring retirement advisers to put their clients’ best interests first. The principal sponsors of the Senate resolution – Johnny Isakson of …

Joint Statement: Why Lawmakers Should Stop Trying to Derail DOL Fiduciary Rulemaking
September 11, 2015 – 9:26 am

“We urge you to reject any such proposal that weakens or delays these crucial protections, whether it is based on H.R. 1090 or a phony Wall Street ‘alternative’ to DOL rules. Instead, you should stand with your hard-working constituents saving for retirement who deserve financial advice that is in their best interest, no matter who provides it.”

AFR Testimony: Expansion of ERISA Fiduciary Duty Protection is “Long Overdue”
August 12, 2015 – 1:33 pm

“Over the forty years since the existing DOL rule was written, retirement markets have transformed and workers have become overwhelmingly reliant on self-directed savings. Due to the loopholes in the current rule, brokers providing advice on such self-directed savings can easily evade the fiduciary protections that Congress intended to provide to workers saving for their retirement through employment-based plans.”

Letter to Regulators: AFR Calls on Department of Labor to Protect Retirement Investors
July 22, 2015 – 11:15 am

“This is a huge problem – one that, over time, can easily add up to a difference of tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement savings. Under the current rules, some of the financial professionals offering retirement investment advice are legally bound to look out for the best interests of their clients; but other professionals, while perceived as having such a duty and clearly benefiting from the perception, are free to put their own interests first, even if that means saddling their clients with needlessly high fees or inappropriate risks.”