The National Association of Fixed Annuities (NAFA) is urging its members to join the fight against the Department of Labor fiduciary rule.

The organization, in a webinar Thursday, asked members to contact their senators and representatives to protest the rule, which it says puts the fixed annuity industry under attack.

NAFA has joined numerous other trade organizations in filing suit against the DOL for implementing the rule. The suit has been put on a fast track at the request of NAFA, which says its members are being hurt every day that they are preparing to meet the new fiduciary standard for retirement advice.

“The Department of Labor exceeded its legal authority by including insurance agents who sell fixed annuities in its ruling and gave no legal rationale for doing so,” Chip Anderson, NAFA executive director says.

In addition the definition of "reasonable compensation" for those who fall under the fiduciary rule is so vague it violates the due process provision of the Constitution, he says.

The suit was filed June 2 in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. A hearing has been set for August and a decision could be rendered as early as September, he says. Those who fall under the rule to meet fiduciary standards for their clients have until next April to comply.

More than 100 members of NAFA met with senators and representatives earlier this month to express their objections to what the organization calls an ‘onerous’ rule. President Obama has already vetoed one piece of legislation that would have repealed the rule, and Anderson says a veto override is unlikely.

NAFA is now asking its members to take a Virtual Hill Walk to continue the pressure on members of Congress asking them to pass other pending legislation that would eliminate the rule or otherwise overturn the ruling.

“Our industry is under attack and advocacy is an important step in protecting it,” says Joe Grecu, NAFA director of membership and development.
“NAFA believes this action is necessary, not only to defend the interests of our members, but to protect consumers against excessive government regulation that will only hurt average working Americans trying to save for retirement,” Anderson said at the time the suit was filed.