State protective-services agencies, on the other hand, support mandatory reporting.
In states where reporting elder abuse is mandatory, usually by banks, “that’s really helped a lot … because [firms] have so much information” about assets that may need protecting, Quinn said.
SIFMA also wants state regulators to drop a proposed requirement to have individual advisors report abuse. The trade group wants that duty left up to firms.
A requirement on individuals would duplicate reporting and force registered reps and investment advisor representatives to circumvent reporting procedures at their firms, SIFMA says.
The trade group also wants more protections beyond the state-proposed 10-day hold period, absent a court order to freeze assets.
State elder authorities say they understand those liability concerns, but feel the industry may be overly fearful.
“In the 17 years I’ve been in this role, I’ve never seen a bank or financial institution sued for freezing [assets] or reporting” abuse, said Cappelletto of the Cook County public guardian’s office.
“But I have seen them sued for not taking action,” she said. “When you’re a deep pocket, and you allow money to go out [to an exploiter], that’s where they get in trouble.”
Despite some differences over the details, all the players support state and federal efforts to make it easier to report and stop exploitation.
SIFMA is encouraging policymakers to harmonize rules as much as possible and develop a single portal to handle reporting to the numerous local protective agencies.