[Editor's note: On Dec. 17, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission members voted 4-1 on Ruling 151A, a move which could significantly change the way many of those in the financial services industry make their livings. We wrote about the ruling last week, and our advisors had plenty to say about it. Following are a sampling of comments we've received from you. Click here for more reader comments.]
The SEC has NO jurisdiction over insurance products, so they just change the rules to make them have it? When they are in fact the competition? Whose pocket are they lining in Washington, DC – and where is the insurance industry in NOT defending itself more? Too little, too late. Why doesn't the Insurance Commissioner apply the same logic and regulate variable annuities and mutual funds, which have lost tons of money – that would even make more sense than attacking principal guaranteed products that are showing their value especially in light of recent events.
The same thing happened in Calif. about 6 years ago when elder lawyers aligned with Calif. legislators to pass laws against insurance agents, especially those doing Medi-Cal annuities but all annuities as well — and the insurance industry again did nothing, ignoring the pleas of agents saying "well, it is just one state – Calif." The biggest, wealthiest state. These regulations spread across the country, and now the SEC is on the same attack.
Let's not be so vulnerable and passive. That gets you nowhere – no, it gets you where we are today, with their foot in the door to the detriment of the public who needs safe money options.
— Kit Batina
The timing of this ruling, which of course did not go thru Congress, is almost funny. At a time when there are so many bailouts happening, the regulators dropped the ball, they want to regulate a fixed product to favor the wirehouses. Things that make you say hmmmm.
