What Wall Street Doesn’t Want You to Know About Fiduciaries

by Kirk Kinder on March 15, 2010

Great article from Minyanville discussing the fiduciary standard, which I have been hyping for weeks now. Here is the meat from the article:

The distinction between a fiduciary and a broker is simple. The broker mainly owes his allegiance to the company and is generally compensated by selling you financial products. A fiduciary’s model is typically to place the client’s best interests before their own and they typically don’t charge a commission.

Current laws give you little guidance and protection. Chances are, your financial adviser is not a fiduciary. There are more than 630,000 registered representatives in the US, brokering everything from mutual funds to variable annuities. Among the biggest brokerage

houses in the US are Merrill Lynch (BAC), Wells Fargo (WFC), and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, which is owned by Morgan Stanley (MS) and Citigroup (C). The vast majority of the folks at these firms are broker-dealers who are paid commissions on certain products they sell.

Registered investment advisers and certified financial planners, in contrast, are nearly all fiduciaries. Since there’s only about 60,000 authorized certified financial planners and about 11,000 registered investment advisers, you really have to search them out.

Will Washington protect Main Street or cave to Wall Street? The House version of the bill, which has already passed, delved into the fiduciary question in some detail. It laid out definitions as to who should be a fiduciary and attempted to bring many financial advisers under that umbrella.

But it’s less clear what the Senate will do. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd’s original template for reform took up the fiduciary issue, but it has since withered as the financial services

lobbyists worked against it. Banks, brokers, and insurers are generally against making their representatives fiduciaries. Not only would it involve more training, it would create more liability for them if their customers are sold unsuitable products.

Hopefully, more mainstream press will pick up on this issue.

  • Michelle,

    I hope you are right, but it already appears that the Dodd bill isn't going to mandate the fiduciary language. I don't have a problem with a broker being a broker. So long as the public knows that the broker's job is to sell product. The problem is, as you eloquently pointed out, is brokers are now portraying themselves as planners. But, they are not held to that standard. Hopefully, this will eventually make it into law; I wouldn't hold my breath though.
  • Michelle
    I think that it's important to note that holding brokers to the fiduciary standard wasn't necessary in the past. Investors were their own adviser and simply went to the broker to make the trade and some brokers still act this way. However, over time, more and more brokers began acting as advisers and began pushing certain products that had a higher commission for them even if it wasn't in the client's best interest. I think that this law will get rid of the double standards investment adviser lobbyists will also see this as another victory against the declining brokerage industry...
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: