What is this fight about? Money, of course.
Although Wall Street tries to make them sound complex, new, and almost unheard of, fiduciary standards are simple to understand. They require fairness, impartiality (or disclosure of self-interest), and efforts to serve the client's best interest instead of the fiduciary's best interest. The standards have been part of trust law since before the founding of the U.S. And, they are part of the obligations of many professionals, of corporate directors, and, according to many, even of members of congress.
Wall Street argues that if these standards are extended to many who now provide investment advice without having these obligations, the result would be horrendously expensive and that investors would no longer be able to afford investment advice. This begs a number of questions. Today I will start with one (or maybe two if you're picky). How much more would it cost to provide investors with advice that is fair, impartial and in the investors' best interest, and if it would be horrendously expensive what does that tell investors about the quality of the advice they are getting today?
