Your Investment Adviser Does Not Have to Work in Your Fiduciary Interest, Says the Ediths of the Fifth Circuit

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals says so.

In a 2-1 ruling, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals said the fiduciary rule bears the hallmarks of “unreasonableness” and constitutes an arbitrary and capricious exercise of administrative power.

Of course it’s unreasonable to make your financial advisers act in your best interests rather than their own, in a country where money is speech and corporations are people, it makes perfect sense.

In a scathing majority opinion, Judge Edith Jones, a Ronald Reagan appointee, agreed.

“Only in DOL’s semantically created world do salespeople and insurance brokers have ‘authority’ or ‘responsibility’ to ‘render investment advice,’” Jones wrote in the court’s opinion.

“The DOL interpretation, in sum, attempts to rewrite the law that is the sole source of its authority. This it cannot do.”

Judge Edith Clement, who sided with Jones, was nominated to the court by President George H. W. Bush.  (emphasis added)

This will certainly be challenged as two Ediths can never be allowed to make such an important decision.

Also, in a related decision 2+2 now equals 5. So says the Ediths!  Obey the Ediths!

Now if it was 30 Helens it would probably make more sense.

Carry on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s