What do belly putters and embedded commissions have in common? Both have been around for decades, and both have now come squarely into the regulators’ crosshairs.
If you’re a serious golfer you’ve heard the news that the United States Golf Association (USGA) and the Royal & Ancient Golf Club (R&A) went through with their proposed ban on anchored putting, which takes effect in 2016.
The uproar over anchoring reached a fever pitch in part because of the major championship success enjoyed by pros wielding the long wand. Keegan Bradley, Webb Simpson, Ernie Els, and Adam Scott have taken four of the last six majors with one version or another of the anchored stroke.
Els, who won last year’s Open Championship with a belly putter, has said repeatedly he thinks anchoring amounts to cheating, but that he’ll use it until it becomes technically illegal.
Arguments on both sides have some merit. Purists say anchoring is an obvious abomination. Others will ask, ‘Why now?’ The anchored stroke has been around for decades – think of Charles Coody winning on the senior circuit in the 1990s with a broomhandle flatstick.
Part of the reason it was overlooked is that back then, the anchored stoke was seen as a mark of utter desperation, the last refuge for those suffering from an incurable case of the yips.
But perceptions change, as they have with fund fees. Many are glad the regulator is going after embedded commissions in earnest, arguing they’re riddled with conflicts of interest. Those opposed to the regulatory scrutiny shake their heads and wonder, like opponents of the belly putter ban, ‘Why now?’
If you’ve paid only passing attention to the simmering showdown, these articles will help get you up to speed:
CSA to scrutinize mutual fund fees
Vanguard supports CSA’s mutual fund fee proposals
MFDA dealer backs CSA’s mutual fund fee proposals
OSC unveils agenda for mutual fund fee roundtable
Advisor compensation model flawed: FPSC
Also read: