For example: “Strong evidence ties adviser conflicts to investments in higher-load, more poorly performing mutual funds. Other evidence strongly suggests that adviser conflicts inflict additional losses…by prompting IRA investors to trade more frequently, which will increase transaction costs and multiply opportunities for chasing returns and committing timing errors.”

The document shows DOL’s bias in favor of buy-and-hold low-cost index funds (preferably no-loads) as IRA investments.

Also, it reveals DOL’s belief that most investors are overwhelmed by financial information and have limited ability to make intelligent decisions. Older investors are especially vulnerable because: “By several measures, according to academic research, financial capability begins to decline around age 53.” (DOL clearly did not consult with professional advisors to reach this rather stunning conclusion.)

The document assigns catchy names to conflicts-of-interest that advisors may not have known exist. For example:

Reverse-churning – This conflict arises when an advisor charges an asset-based fee to a client who trades infrequently, and might benefit by paying commissions instead.

Hat-switching – This conflict occurs when an advisor works in more than one capacity (e.g., as a registered rep and RIA, or as a registered rep and insurance agent) and does not make clear to the client which hat he/she is wearing in making a particular recommendation.

The report tells you, perhaps, what is coming from DOL after the new ERISA fiduciary rule is implemented. It also reveals two conflicts that DOL itself may have. First, if DOL can save IRA investors $40 billion over a decade, it could produce perhaps $10 billion in extra tax revenue for the U.S. Government, when this money is distributed. Secondly, the U.S. Government would like to have a say in how the huge pool of IRA assets, which DOL projects will reach $19 trillion by 2026, will be invested. The sums have grown too large to leave decisions to individuals and their chosen advisors.