Arguably, though, the DoL still misses the true significance of the role that advisor titles play. One of the most straightforward ways to re-assert a clearer line for consumers between advice and sales is simply for the DoL to permit insurance agents and brokerage representatives to continue to be salespeople… so long as the professional does not hold themselves out as being a financial advisor or market that they offer financial planning. Such a "Salesperson's Exemption", would apply to salespersons who: (1) avoided holding themselves out as financial advisors or financial planners, (2) avoided marketing that they offer any financial advice or financial planning services, (3) and provided disclosures on all sales presentations or illustrations to the effect that the engagement does not constitute advice and that the consumer should consult an actual financial advisor about the appropriateness of the sales recommendation. https://bit.ly/49xJtur #advicers
I think it would make sense to require insurance only people to use the title "Insurance Agent" instead of "financial professional" "financial consultant" or any other title that might mislead people into believing that the person is a licensed financial advisor.
Michael Kitces, I love your perspective here! As a former advisor who ran a practice in the captive insurance channel (I actually was a fully licensed advisor!) , I passionately believe in the important role life insurance and annuities can play when used in the right way. I also ran the DOL response in 2015-2016 for a leading annuity carrier and saw the potentially disastrous impact the rule could have had in limiting services to consumers. I'm all for consumer protection, but the DOL should seriously consider the unintended consequences of their approach.