Short DOL Fiduciary Rule Comment Period Faces Criticism

Labor's plan, the lawmakers said, is "a weaker version which would let financial advisors put their own interests ahead of their clients.'"

"Contrary to its name, the proposed rule does not require financial advisors to abide by a fiduciary standard when providing retirement investment advice. Unscrupulous advisors could still prioritize their financial interests and profit motives over that of their clients' retirement interests," they wrote.

Thirty days is an "insufficient time for the American public to review and respond to a complex, 123-page proposed rule," Murray and Scott wrote.

Specifically, the lawmakers said, the proposed rule requires familiarity with the 770-page Reg BI.

"The DOL owes it to the public to take the time to meaningfully engage with people about their concerns rather than rushing through a rule that would seriously damage the retirement security of people across the country," the lawmakers told Scalia. "During the middle of a pandemic, when people across the country are grappling with severe economic and health challenges, it is as important as ever for the DOL not to arbitrarily and unfairly rush through this process."

Better Markets penned a letter along with other public interest groups urging Labor to extend the comment period on the proposal to at least 90 days.

"The letter makes clear that 90 days is the minimum amount of time necessary for all stakeholders to analyze the rule and prepare their comments. That's because the proposal is so complex and important, affecting almost every American struggling to save for a decent retirement," Hall said. "Such a short comment period even conflicts with the law, which provides that the public must have a meaningful opportunity to comment on rule proposals, with a minimum of 60 days if not more."