Indyone, annuities are a hot and targeted issue at many levels. This is part of the opportunity to dress up "client interests" to cover for firm greed as they go for advantages both here and worse lay groundwork for future dealer power grabs.

Glauber is lipstick on the pig, he gets quoted all the time by the firm. Since the issues are complex and the "lower costs" are good sound bite politics for regulators to be touting (in age where "Suze" has taken anti-adviser marketing to rock star status as one symptom of our times), the subtle but greater negative to consumers is lost in the flim flam pr handling. Instead of saying the dealer has a proprietary model it's selling it dressed up as "lower cost to consumers". The fact is the prospectus system independent of dealers is far more reliable that the nonsense they have planned going forward. Time and again it's been proven dealers should stay out of product design. Ironically it was this thought that helped build the firm in question. In the double speak of the effort they don't even concede it's proprietary! Every distortion and device is used to deny the obvious. It's insidious how they cooked this product up.

Add this to the NASD 05-50 on EIA and you can see the imperial abuse "independent" businesses and consumers are taking. Tyranny always claims the best interest for it's captives.

Entire industry will be moving towards fee reduction and simplicity among

products sold. Fair? No, but we all we be feeling this before too long.

[quote=The Truth]Entire industry will be moving towards fee reduction and simplicity among
products sold. Fair? No, but we all we be feeling this before too long.[/quote]

Truth, the markets should decide prices not dealers, certainly not "independent" dealers whose contracts are based on staying out proprietary product designs.

If regulators want to fix annuity prices they should go to the source, insurance companies and do it across the board. There is nothing "less complicated" by the way with the new product designs. They can argue that they are cheaper but the nature product and firm in question has been changed for the worse. It's no longer an "independent firm" as that term has been abused.

Truth - I think that’s a myth flat out.  I hear a few RJFS advisors say that when I spoke to them and the reality is there is not another indy b/d that I know of that is limiting product and capping pay outs.  There’s more to this story than we know and time will tell but I suspect some big changes will unfold with RJFS sometime soon.  This simply appears to be an attempt to improve valuation at RJ and force advisors to place more emphasis on their prop. platforms in fee business. 

[quote=csmelnix]Truth - I think that's a myth flat out.  I hear a few RJFS advisors say that when I spoke to them and the reality is there is not another indy b/d that I know of that is limiting product and capping pay outs.  There's more to this story than we know and time will tell but I suspect some big changes will unfold with RJFS sometime soon.  This simply appears to be an attempt to improve valuation at RJ and force advisors to place more emphasis on their prop. platforms in fee business.  [/quote]

I would say that is correct. I wouldn't discount the sub-plots discussed either; regulator bone throw, revenue sharing relationships and disclosure, recruiting surplus from the wirehouses creating the short-term greed moment.  It's going to take plenty of blood for this move and the regime in place to be refuted. Maybe they want to be a smaller firm with less commissions at this time.

In one of the many Luca Brasi moments I've known in the industry a friend of mine called and said they changed the firms mission statement and printed decorative wall mounts that he received last week, I don't have mine yet, that I can only imagine will be sent to every office. Kinda like a fish in the bullet proof vest, a Sicilian message about the "new order". I actually don't have a copy of the old mission statement to compare but it definitely looks more "you employee we owner/management". RJ has always played good cop bad cop hypocrisy on these themes. Go look at the recruiting ad slicks and then read the memos they send to the field. You "own your business" but you better walk exactly in line like I tell you, or else.  

I hope you all are right, but let’s not forget this topic down the line.

The WSJ press release;

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114747132006851751.html?mod= yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo

I don't know about everyone else, but I think Fidelity's no-guarantee annuity is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of.  The guarantee is 90% of the reason I suggest Variable annuities.  The tax deferral benefit is not a great benefit since annuities, when taxed, are taxed as ordinary income, rather than the lower dividend and capital gains rates, at least partially offsetting the deferral benefit.

What a dumb idea...surely I could convince a fidelity contract holder to either to to a cheaper, pure investment subject to cap gains, or switch to a contract with some guarantees.

This is a tough business when selecting the dumbest ideas category, the competition is so massive;

Just one thematic example of where reform can lead on the famed "b share reform";

http://www.investmentnews.com/article.cms?articleId=55031

What a surprise; regulators, firms screwed it up again! Clients and brokers suffer and clearly other segments aside the advice segment paid a higher price. You wonder why I'm screaming over annuity reform?

Now do we have to go through more reform of the last reform?

Can you stand it?