But here's the vilest part. The SEC questionnaire is incredibly biased. If industry lobbyists fighting the fiduciary standard had written this SEC release, it wouldn't have looked much different. In fact, so slanted is the questionnaire, one is left with one's own questions, such as:

Why has the SEC placed the business models of the industry ahead of protecting the investor?
Why does the SEC insist on focusing on the never validated "cost" to the industry while ignoring peer-reviewed academic research that indicates the cost to investors of no fiduciary standard exceeds the GDP of some small developing nations? (see "Study: SEC Fiduciary Delay Costing Retirement Investors $1 Billion per Month," FiduciaryNews.com, Feb. 12, 2013)
Why does the SEC even assume cost matters when the real issue is the damages caused by industry conflicts of interest? (see "Yet Another Independent Study Highlights High Conflict-of-Interest Cost to Retirement Investors," FiduciaryNews.com, Feb. 26, 2013)
Why, despite peer-reviewed academic research proving evidence to the contrary, does the SEC continue to entertain the assumption that disclosure has any significance? (see "Exclusive Interview with Yale's Daylian Cain: Just a Sugar Pill? Disclosure's 'Ah-Ha!' Moment," FiduciaryNews.com, Oct. 18, 2010)

Like a trail of breadcrumbs, nearly every point raised by the SEC has been answered by objective, nonpartisan researchers. Yet the SEC has actively chosen to ignore this helpful research and, instead, has opted to ask a labyrinth of stale queries posing as an honest attempt at enlightenment.

Instant Insights /

SEC fiduciary questionnaire is fatally flawed

More From HR Executive

Related Stories

Recommended For You