The Department of Labor recently proposed to delay the fiduciary ("conflict of interest") rule requiring retirement advisers to provide advice in their clients' best interest, and asked for comment on whether it should rescind the rule in its entirety. Industry has already submitted thousands of comments, and we need savers writing in support of the rule. Here is an article from Forbes that goes into more detail.

What we need from you:

Please email the following note, with a personalized sentence or two about why this matters to you, to [email protected] by March 17.

Subject of the email: RIN 1210-AB79

To the Department of Labor:

I support the implementation of the Department of Labor conflict of interest rule and oppose any delay of the rule.

Millions of Americans, like me, are counting on their 401(k)s and IRAs, and many depend on investment professionals for advice about managing these complex retirement plans. Retirement savers should be able to trust their financial advisers to put their clients' interests first. Unfortunately, the rules that have applied to retirement investment advice have made it too easy for unscrupulous advisers to line their own pockets at their clients' expense.

The DOL rule would close the loopholes in the law that have allowed financial advisers to profit at their clients' expense. It would strengthen protections for retirement savers by requiring financial advisers and their firms to provide retirement investment advice that is in the client's best interests. As a result, retirement savers will have the confidence that when they go to financial advisers, they are receiving high-quality, honest advice, instead of a sales pitch disguised as advice. Americans who have worked hard to save for retirement need and deserve these basic, common-sense protections.

Delaying implementation of these new protections would allow financial advisers and their firms to continue to engage in harmful practices that threaten the retirement security of their hardworking clients. In deciding to delay the rule, that DOL is taking the position that opponents' interests in avoiding having to comply with the rule should win out over retirement savers' interests in receiving the critical protections from the rule, which is shameful. Retirement savers need and deserve to receive the protections of the rule without delay. The DOL should conclude that the proposed delay is unjustified and that the rule should be implemented beginning on April 10th.