Fiduciaries Denver CO

Local resource for fiduciaries in Denver. Includes detailed information on local businesses that provide access to fiduciary licensing programs, asset management, and strategic planning advice, as well as advice and content on fiduciary responsibilities.


Debra A Porter
303-830-2400
Wells Fargo Center, Suite 2400, 1700 Lincoln St.
Denver, CO
James William Callison
303-607-3770
1700 LINCOLN ST
DENVER, CO
Bruce A Fowler
303-830-2400
Wells Fargo Center, Suite 2400, 1700 Lincoln St.
Denver, CO
Michael Suchoparek
(303) 296-3230
600 17th St.
Denver, CO
Mary L. Groves
303-296-2590
1801 Broadway, Suite 1700
Denver, CO
William C Holland
303-866-0472
1700 Lincoln Street, Ste 4100
Denver, CO
Teresa C. Baird
303-830-2400
Wells Fargo Center, Suite 2400
Denver, CO
Adrienne O'connell Mcnamara
303-607-3679
1700 LINCOLN ST
DENVER, CO
Douglas Wayne Fix
303-629-3449
370 17th St Ste 4700
Denver, CO
Matthias Michael Edrich
303-296-3996
1801 Broadway, Suite 1700
Denver, CO
Data Provided by:
  

Moving to the Fiduciary Standard

written by A.T. "Al" Benelli, CFP, FIC

Those folks who follow my column regularly will recognize the word… fiduciary. What they may not all comprehend however is the true meaning of the word. In the world of legal definitions it is generally associated with anyone who is entrusted with the responsibility of acting in the best interest of another person.

A fiduciary may include a trustee, a business or financial adviser, attorney, guardian, estate administrator, banker or stockbroker. The fiduciary is assumed to have more knowledge and expertise about the matters being handled and is held to a higher standard of conduct and trust than a stranger or a casual businessperson. Conflicts of interest must be avoided where the fiduciary’s interests are not in the best interest of the person who trusts him/her/it. For example: a stockbroker must consider the best investment for the client and not what brings him/her the highest commission. The client’s best interest should be primary even if a fiduciary and client join together in a business venture.

Last month, The Securities and Exchange Commission said that it would move toward a uniform fiduciary standard for broker-dealers, investment advisors and others in the securities industry. And while this is certainly welcome news for the consumer, there are also a few inherent dangers buried in this announcement.

First is the scope of the standard. Registered Investment Advisors have had a fiduciary duty to clients since the 1940’s with the passage of the Investment Advisor’s Act, but not all those who hold themselves out to the public as advisors come under its jurisdiction. A person, such as an insurance agent having no securities licensing or registration is NOT bound to the fiduciary standard, nor will they be, apparently, under the new SEC proposal. Unless the standard is broadened to include all persons offering advice, there will be huge loopholes in which “non-fiduciaries” can reside. This is fertile ground for consumer abuse.

The second danger lies in the fact that most regulatory agencies, the SEC… and it’s close partner FINRA… are “rules” oriented. Fiduciary standards should be based on “principles” and not rules. Just as you cannot legislate morality, trying to define “fair dealing” may create a monster. The devil is… and will certainly be… in the details.

Topping it all off, since the elimination of Glass-Steagall, the functions of bankers, insurance agents, brokers and advisors have become muddied. How is an investor to know who or what he or she is dealing with now that everyone’s business card contains some “advisory” reference in an often vague… but important sounding… title? Decades ago, most investors in the stock market were wealthy and either had the knowledge themselves or were in a relationship with a trusted and competent advisor. With the popularity of defined contribution plans, such as a 401(k), the responsibility for one’s own retirement cuts across...

Click here to read the rest of the article from Boomer-Living.com

Ponzi Schemes Beg the Question: ‘Who’s Minding the Store?’

written by A.T. "Al" Benelli, CFP, FIC

There’s an old expression in the financial services industry that goes something , “It’s hard to tell who’s swimming naked until the tide goes out!” I’ve used it several times to describe various trends in our business, but perhaps it’s most well-related use is in the unveiling of Ponzi schemes .

It didn’t all start with Bernard Madoff, but he’s certainly become the poster child for ripping off people with investment scams . He seemed to be cruising along fairly well — nearly 30 years of tomfoolery — before his house of cards came tumbling down. The culprit for Madoff was the economy. As more and more of his investors desired to “cash out,” taking the profits they so earnestly believed they had in their accounts, Madoff and company were unable to meet the demand. If no one had asked for their money, Bernie Madoff might still be in business today despite the SEC, FINRA and all the other organizations that are supposed to be in place to prevent this from happening.

Since Bernie there have been a few prominent revelations and accusations in our own back yard. There is/was Joe Forte down in Broomall, David Garfield in Cherry Hill, and most recently Robert Stinson in Berwyn. In the case of David Garfield, everything seemed to be on the up-and-up until his death in January of this year. Only then did his investors start questioning the whereabouts of their money. Authorities estimate that the elaborate Ponzi scheme had been going on for as much as 17 years. Where were the SEC, NASD (now FINRA) and the New Jersey State Securities Commission all that time?

When Robert Stinson was accused in a 22-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court of stealing at least $16 million from his investors, it was revealed that he was a convicted felon and a repeat violator of securities laws. Who gave this guy a securities license?

And while we point fingers at the regulatory agencies for apparently spending most of their time on the minutia of insignificant compliance issues while millions of investor dollars are stolen under their noses, let’s not forget the investors themselves. Did they do their homework? ly not!

Stinson was promising returns of 10 to 16 percent on short-term real estate investments. What rational, intelligent person could accept this without question? A greedy one. If you are not going to double-check the registrations, licensing and regulatory background of the person to whom you are entrustin...

Click here to read the rest of the article from Boomer-Living.com

Search Local Services and Information
What:  
Where:
Browse by state
 » All Local Guides
 » Alabama
 » Alaska
 » Arizona
 » Arkansas
 » California
 » Colorado
 » Connecticut
 » DC
 » Delaware
 » Florida
 » Georgia
 » Hawaii
 » Idaho
 » Illinois
 » Indiana
 » Iowa
 » Kansas
 » Kentucky
 » Louisiana
 » Maine
 » Maryland
 » Massachusetts
 » Michigan
 » Minnesota
 » Mississippi
 » Missouri
 » Montana
 » Nebraska
 » Nevada
 » New Hampshire
 » New Jersey
 » New Mexico
 » New York
 » North Carolina
 » North Dakota
 » Ohio
 » Oklahoma
 » Oregon
 » Pennsylvania
 » Rhode Island
 » South Carolina
 » South Dakota
 » Tennessee
 » Texas
 » Utah
 » Vermont
 » Virginia
 » Washington
 » West Virginia
 » Wisconsin
 » Wyoming
Copyright © 2006-2011 BSLI Inc.