DOL rule still has feet tangled in the struggle to define difference between 'suitability' and 'fiduciary'
Fiduciares keep flunking a definition of useful accountability and the giant brokerage lobby keeps exploiting its 'F'
Top Executive: Kathleen McBride, President, BCF™, CEFEX Analyst, AIFA®, AIF®
I’m sure you are trying to connect the dots…it’s not that hard frankly nor theoretical. I do not get this article at all… if it was me you would be fired from this job! More kudos
Please, if it’s not that hard then please spell out the difference between a suitability standard and a
Here’s the catch.
Your definition of 'fiduciary’ can not be merely suitable or you will fail to deliver due care of your reader:)
Aha…and ha ha! Do you want a copy of the Fiduciary 10 Commandments we put together a couple of years ago? A few things run through my unenlightened mind- 1) Hard for me to believe an 'advisor’ can make as much $$ off a single account acting in a fiduciary rather than suitability capacity. Once all the ways the advisor or his/her firm, TAMP etc. are compensated and the potential misalignment of interest- clients would gag…and perhaps the advisor’s face would turn red. 2) Wonder if this continued 'tangle’ is more of a smoke screen to provide deniability and/or ignorance if called on the carpet. 'Gee Mr/Ms Regulator…I didn’t really understand what this here fiduciary stuff really meant. I thought I was doing it right so spare me’ 3) There are processes which have been in place for years at ERISA and other institutional pools to demonstrate acting in the best interest of the beneficiary (i.e.- client). These processes are available to advisors if they so chose. While such processes do not assure any outcome (no investment does)- they do demonstrate logical, documented, fully disclosed, academically sound rigor to defend that the advisor is acting in the best interest of their client.