1/ I spent the last two days reading through industry comment letters on the DOL’s #BadAdviceRule so you don’t have to. (You're welcome.)

Here are a few key takeaways.

2/ I was worried their smug satisfaction over a rule that gave them 99.9% of what they asked for would be tough to swallow.

Boy was I wrong. They seem seriously pissed over that missing 0.1%.

Read more about that here: https://medium.com/@cfastaffofficial/brokers-and-insurers-cry-foul-over-dol-advice-rule-17032bcdb0a5

3/ The main gripe of brokers and insurers alike is that DOL leaves open the possibility that their rollover recommendations might occasionally be treated as fiduciary advice (albeit only if it is part of an ongoing advisory relationship, and not always then).

4/ Insurers, in particular, seem to view the failure to provide a blanket exemption for rollovers to annuities as a betrayal of the first order.

Note regarding the quote below: There is no solely incidental exclusion in the ERISA definition.

5/ There’s an interesting divergence between fund companies on this point.

While ICI and T. Rowe Price are all-in on reopening loopholes in the definition, Fidelity and Vanguard take a more measured approach.

6/ These two fund giants are virtually alone among industry commenters in voicing support for holding rollover recommendations to a fiduciary standard when part of an ongoing advisory relationship.

7/ As top 401(k) providers, each with a large selection of high-quality, low-cost investment options, Fidelity and Vanguard likely understand that they will benefit from a strong rollover standard.

8/ I would be remiss if I failed to mention the much appreciated support for a strong standard from the Financial Planning Coalition, including @CFPBoard , @fpassociation, and @NAPFA.

9/ The contrast between these groups' pro-fiduciary letter and letters from SIFMA, NAIFA, ACLI, FSI and the whole alphabet soup of insurance groups is striking.

Think about that next time you're looking to choose an investment professional.

10/ If DOL was proposing to hold brokers and insurers to a tough fiduciary standard with tight restrictions on conflicts, broker and insurer groups’ outrage that the standard might occasionally apply to them would be more understandable, if not any more admirable. But it's not.

11/ For brokers and insurers who do happen to trigger the definition, DOL is offering an exemption that is based directly on SEC’s Reg. BI and NAIC’s model annuity rule.

Those are standards industry strongly supported precisely because they do little to change the status quo.

12/ Just to be clear about this, DOL is not holding non-fiduciaries to a fiduciary standard, as these groups claim. It is holding fiduciaries to a watered down, non-fiduciary standard.

13/ So what’s so scary about applying those non-fiduciary standards to brokers’ and insurers’ rollover recommendations?

14/ A primary source of anxiety seems to be DOL’s requirement to document the basis for concluding a rollover is in the retirement savers’ best interest.

Pretty much every broker and insurer group calls for that requirement to be eliminated.

15/ Also on the chopping block, if industry has its way, is the requirement for a retrospective review and CEO certification of compliance – the rule’s one provision with any potential to encourage firms to take compliance seriously.

16/ The more extreme letters call for deleting the best interest standard from the rule entirely and eliminating any applicability to IRA advice. (Apparently it’s not enough that the standard is unenforceable for IRA investors.)

See below from NAIFA.

17/ It really is dispiriting to read these letters. I don’t actually think most financial professionals set out to harm their clients.

But their lobbyists sure acts as if that’s their goal, and they’re going to make damned sure no one can hold them accountable when they do.