"Most of the [best practices] items on the survey are either part of our curriculum or part of our professional code of responsibility," he says. "Our members are putting their clients' interests first, and that's their primary focus."
Not Making The Grade
September 6, 2012
« Previous Article
| Next Article »
Login in order to post a comment
Comments
-
Whose interests are truely being served ?David Sterling's question of whose interests are truely being served, answers many of the questions he raises. It is the self interest of the brokerage industry that has been served rather than the best interest of the investing public. In fact the best interests of the investing public are not dynamic and as fluid as Sterling suggest but are based on objective, non-negotiable fiduciary criteria based on statute, case law and regulatory opinion letters and 800 years of common law. Best practices are the qualitative variable as to the depth and breadth of counsel and is determined by the skill of the advisor which ever elevates the professional standing of the industry in general. There is no Jack of all trades metaphor but every increasing expert counsel built on a very high level base point counsel which should be enjoyed by all who seek expert fiduciary counsel. SCW
-
Principal and In-House CounselRe: Fiduciary Goggledygook Talk about an amalgam! Until alleged fiduciary gurus can narrow the scope of what is meant by "being a fiduciary" over a broad base of service providers, this discussion goes nowhere. (I say "alleged" because some of those who promote the fiduciary model, appear to have limited direct client advisory experience. Imagine that.) Additionally, how does anyone in his or her right mind expect to integrate the application of fiduciary principles to investment advisors and financial planners. There are critical distinctions. Moving along. Regarding fiduciary standards and the CFP credential, earning the credential is no easy task and the curriculum is both imposing and exemplary. However, as applied to the "best interests of the client" and "best practices," the credential, at best, morphs into a "jack of all trades and master of none" overlay. How absurd to believe that one holding the credential is qualified to apply fiduciary practice standards to the full range of curricular components. And, please, let's keep a "street level" reality perspective of how business is actually conducted. Continuing on this rant, why not throw the notions of "clients' best interests" and "best practices" into the hopper. These are dynamic principles which appear to be reduced to the presumed superiority of certain practice management applications and business models. Talk about self-serving agendas! Whose interests are truly being served? As far as the word "best" goes, get rid of it. Would those professing some special insight please climb down from their saddles? Why the attitude? My case file paints a different picture of reality. David F. Sterling, Esq., Consultant