2013: Schweikert Voted To Delay The Labor Department From Issuing Regulations On Fiduciary Standards On Private Pension Plans. In October 2013, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have delayed the issuance of the Fiduciary Rule. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "prohibit[ed] the Labor Department from issuing regulations regarding fiduciary care standards under federal law on private pension plans until 60 days after the Securities and Exchange Commission finalizes its own rule. The measure would [have] require[d] the SEC, before issuing its rule, to identify whether expanded fiduciary standards would result in less access to financial products and services for retail investors and to submit formal findings that any final rule would reduce retail investor confusion over the standards of conduct that apply to brokers and advisers." The vote was on the legislation. The House passed the bill by a vote of 254 to 166. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 567, 10/29/13; Congressional Quarterly, 10/29/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2374]
2017: Schweikert Voted For Legislation That Would Have Repealed Significant Portions Of Dodd-Frank, Including The Fiduciary Rule. In June 2017, Schweikert voted for the Financial Choice Act. According to NPR, "House Republicans voted Thursday to deliver on their promise to repeal Dodd-Frank --- the massive set of Wall Street regulations President Barack Obama signed into law after the 2008 financial crisis. In a near party-line vote, the House approved a bill, dubbed the Financial Choice Act, which scales back or eliminates many of the post-crisis banking rules." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 233 to 186. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 299, 6/8/17; NPR, 6/8/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 10]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Override President Obama's Veto Of A Bill That Repealed The So-Called Fiduciary Rule. In April 2016, Schweikert voted for overriding President Obama's veto of legislation formally disapproving the Labor Department's Fiduciary Rule. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage, over President Obama's June 8, 2016 veto, of the joint resolution that would disapprove and nullify the Labor Department's April 2016 rule regarding standards for individuals who provide retirement investment advice to act in the best interests of their clients." The vote was on the overriding President Obama's veto of the joint resolution, requiring a two-thirds majority, or 280 affirmative votes in this case. The House failed to override the veto by a vote of 239 to 180. [House Vote 338, 6/22/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/22/16; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 88]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Repeal The So-Called Fiduciary Rule. In April 2016, Schweikert voted for legislation formally disapproving the Labor Department's Fiduciary Rule. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would provide Congressional disapproval of the Department of Labor rule relating to the 'definition of the term 'Fiduciary'', that was published on April 8, 2016, regarding standards for individuals giving retirement investment advice. The resolution would also void the rule." The vote was on the resolution. The House passed the bill by a vote of 234 to 183. The bill was then passed by the Senate and was sent to the president, who vetoed it. The House later failed to override the president's veto. [House Vote 176, 4/28/16; Congressional Quarterly, 4/28/16; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 88]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Prevent The So Called "Fiduciary Rule," Which Would Require Any Advisor Being Paid To Provide Investment Advice Must Put Their Clients Interests Before Their Own. In October 2015, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have, according to The Hill, "prevent[ed] the Labor Department from finalizing a controversial regulation to expand investment advice standards for retirement accounts." According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have specifically "prevent[ed] the Labor Department from issuing a final rule regarding fiduciary standards for retirement investment advisers until after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issues a final rule on broker-dealer conduct standards. The bill would not [have] require[d] the SEC to issue a final rule. The SEC, before issuing a rule, would [have] be[en] required to report to Congress with certain information, including whether retail investors are being harmed by the lower standard for brokers and dealers and whether adoption of a uniform fiduciary standard would harm retail investors' access to cost-effective and personalized investment advice." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 245 to 186. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 575, 10/27/15; The Hill, 10/27/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/27/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1090]
In April, The Department Of Labor Issued A Rule Known As The Fiduciary Rule Which Said That A Paid Investment Advisor Must Put Their Clients' Interest Before Their Own. According to Forbes, "First for the uninitiated, some background: in April, the Department of Labor issued a fiduciary rule proposing that a 'best interest standard' be applied across a broader range of investing advice such that any advisor getting paid to provide personalized investment advice --- on things like what assets to buy or whether or not to roll a 401k into an IRA --- be considered a fiduciary and have to put their clients' interests first." [Forbes, 2/11/16]
The Council Of Economic Advisors Estimates That The Current, Outdated Rules "Cost Savers $17 Billion" Annually. According to a Statement of Administration Policy, "Under existing, outdated rules, savers cannot count on receiving the unbiased advice that they need and expect. This bill would effectively block action to protect working and middle-class families from the harmful conflicts of interest that lead to biased advice. The Council of Economic Advisers estimates that these conflicts cost savers $17 billion every year." [Statement Of Administration Policy, 10/26/15]
JPMorgan Agreed To Pay Over $300 Million To The SEC Due To Allegations That Its Brokers And Advisors Steered Clients Into More Expensive Investment Products. According to Reuters, "If you doubt that we need this regulation, consider the case of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Just before the holidays, the largest bank in the United States agreed to pay $307 million to settle accusations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that brokers and advisers in several JPMorgan divisions steered clients into its own, more expensive investment products over other choices without making the required disclosures to clients about conflicts of interest. JPMorgan also gave preference to third-party hedge fund managers who paid placement fees equal to 1 percent of the market value of invested client assets - so-called 'retrocession' fees. While clients did not pay those fees directly, this type of arrangement ultimately hurts the investor because it puts a drag on performance. Finally, the company chose mutual funds with more expensive retail fees over identical - but less expensive - institutional funds. The bank will pay $267 million to the SEC, and $40 million to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which also conducted an investigation. The SEC cease-and-desist order describes the violations as willful, fraudulent and deceitful, and identifies $127 million in ill-gotten gains generated through JPMorgan's disclosure failure." [Reuters, 1/7/16]