Years ago I was in the office of a friend and colleague who was purchasing tickets from Ticketmaster.  He wished to take his young child to the circus.  A fairly straightforward and common transaction.

At the end of the call the Ticketmaster rep summarized the transaction.  “The cost per ticket is $x including a convenience fee of $y” to which my friend/colleague innocently asked, “For whose convenience?”

Much can be said today in the world of financial advice.  The debate lingers about suitability standards vs. fiduciary standards.

The Labor Department is about to issue rules for retirement advice.  The product pushers are nervous.  But should they be?

According to a new survey 77% of people would support legally requiring those providing retirement advice to be free from conflicts.  Yet the obfuscation coming from the media machines at the product-pushing firms have dumbed down the difference.  Consider these results from the same survey:

  • 46% of those surveyed wrongly believe providers of ‘advice’ are already required to be a fiduciary (i.e. must legally put the client interest first)
  • 41% of people who use an advisor don’t know if he or she is a fiduciary
  • only 18% knew what it meant for a financial advisor to be a fiduciary

The full report may be found here.