David Mills:
In 2013, in a little-heralded case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the Obama Labor Department’s attempt to punish voluntary retirement plan service providers. The DOL, under the direction of the controversial, radical leftist Tom Perez, had tried to force providers of 401(k), 403(b), IRA, and related services to adopt a massive new set of regulations known as “fidiculary” responsibilities.
The Seventh Circuit slammed the door shut on Labor and the Supreme Court thereafter declined to hear the appeal, which meant that the Obama administration had lost in the highest court in the land.
Of course for the “most transparent administration ever”, that step simply meant that the court’s opinion was to be rejected and that Obama would use his infamous pen to rule by executive fiat. After all, the ends justify the means, correct?
On August 24th, Perez and the Labor Department confirmed they are moving forward with new regulations that would repudiate the court’s opinion. Even Obama’s SEC Commissioner issued an ominous warning that the Labor Department’s new regulations would unleash havoc and create “a mess.”
Furthermore, financial services experts have cautioned that the new rule is “too complicated to [actually] put into practice.”
Earlier this month, the Labor Department held public hearings to discuss the input and concerns they have received from industry groups and other stakeholders that will be impacted by the department’s proposal to expand the definition of “fiduciary” under ERISA … In the debate over the DOL’s proposal — which, as written, [will] create a vast and costly new regulatory regime for independent firms and advisers across the country…
Barack Obama and Tom Perez don’t care about all of that. They’re on a mission to seize your retirement funds:
Labor Department officials are determined to produce a new standard of fiduciary duty for anyone giving retirement investment advice, once they process concerns raised in thousands of comment letters and four days of hearings on their proposal.
A SIMPLE PLAN
Like Obamacare, the idea is to drive small- and mid-size service providers out of the retirement business by ensuring that the costs of complying with regulations are unaffordable. And, to ensure a Republican president can’t easily unwind the Rube Goldberg machinery, the Labor Department has also promised an impossible eight month implementation timeline. Most providers believe it will take three years to follow all of the byzantine rules and regulations.
Their intent, in my view, is to force a consolidation of the retirement service industry, just as Obamacare drove mergers and acquisitions in the health care business, leaving only gigantic corporations in its wake. These companies have become intertwined and dependent upon legislators and lobbyists in Washington. They can’t make a move without the permission of the federal leviathan.
Many Democrats are open about the true goal of Obamacare: to end up with a single-payer health care system, modeled after the National Health Service in the U.K. You know, the system that was reported to have killed 120,000 seniors in 2012 alone.
SETTING THEIR SIGHTS ON TRILLIONS OF YOUR RETIREMENT DOLLARS
The Obama administration has its sights set on an incredible amount of your money. By some estimates, Americans are holding well over $10 trillion in private retirement accounts.
Jesus H. Christ.
Hillary first floated this idea several years ago.
She wanted to seize all retirement accounts.
Give us an annuity.
That we could draw on beginning at age 70.
Screw the libs.
It’s my money.
I sacrificed a lot, did without a lot, to save it.
I retired at 50.
Now liberals wants to take it all and tell me that I have to go back to work until I’m 70?
It’s my money, not theirs.
Hey, liberals, if you want money so badly, do it the way I did.
Work for it.
Invest it.
Don’t steal it.
I know that’s a novel idea…
Watch retirement savings into government run 401k accounts dwindle, as people start opening retirement accounts overseas skyrocket. Seeing what the federal government has done with SS is all the advance warning one needs to see how stupid it would be to “invest” in a government controlled 401k system.
God.forbid anyone have the audacity to not want to be dependent on politicians for one’s retirement.
The actual issue: 401(k) Revenue Sharing. How do you know if you’re being charged reasonable fees for investment management, since they’re not being directly stated? (You very well may not know, and it’s possible that companies benefiting to an unfair extent from the arrangement may prefer that you not know.)
Of course you wouldn’t want a meddlesome government to “seize your retirement plan,” so it’s probably better that no standards be set. Holding plan companies to fiduciary standards would require that they keep tabs on revenue sharing to make certain that fees indirectly charged fairly reflect the reasonable worth of the management services that are actually provided. Small monthly overcharges to individual accounts could add up to all-but-invisible multi-million dollar shakedowns of retirees. Given the extent of 401K funds overall, it could be a widespread practice.
Greg #3
It is up to the individual to keep tabs on his 401k. That’s just basic investor sense. I am only familiar with the 401k that I had before I retired, but in my case all information about income and fees was included in the annual report.
Even if the fees are excessive, at least they only cost a small part of the plan’s value.
The government wants it all.
But, to address your point, government regulation is not the same as government confiscation.
Standards should be set by the consumer.
No government interference is needed.
And I sure as hell don’t want the government taking all of my investments to avoid the chance that a broker might take a small part of them!