Brokerage Agreements-To Appeal Or Not to Appeal/Another issue on what to disclosure

Implications: The noose seems to be tightening around what needs to be disclosed in Broker Agreements. Is it more costly to take the chance of not disclosing what may be a fiduciary obligation? Brokers can no longer hide behind any presumption of a sophisticated user.

Analysis:      Will the SEC appeal the March 30 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that it overstepped its authority by allowing registered reps to hold themselves out as investment advisers, without requiring them to act as fiduciaries — provided that any advice they dispense is “incidental.” If no appeal is taken the ruling goes into effect 5/21. SIFMA, representing more than 650 securities firms, has urged the SEC appeal, suggesting it could hurt about one million investors with fee-based accounts at brokerage firms.  The SEC has backed off in some areas
http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070514/REG/70514056   
   Interestingly, at year end, approx. $30 billion resided in UBS’s fee-based program, which is called InsightOne. This could likely transition many of the assets in the program into accounts belonging to one of its other fee-based advisory programs, which include Strategic Advisor and ACCESS. Consequently, some UBS brokers would lose those assets?
Will the cost of an appeal may be high, the loss of certain clients could be even greater and possibly exponential. Other groups of investors would just like to see that public awareness be heightened to let [investors] know there is a difference,” between brokers and advisers. Definitely a balancing act on a thin tightrope!