Life is hectic. How many times has, “I’m just really busy” been the answer you’ve received when asking a friend how they’re doing?

We handle the time crunch with shortcuts. We like our apps, AAA diamonds, three out of four star movie reviews, Yelp and the like.

But there are times when shortcuts are due to laziness. Sadly we’re often lazy when addressing one of the most important aspects of our lives – our finances.

Ask someone the difference between a financial advisor, broker and financial planner and you’ll get a common reply – a look of utter confusion. Surely that’s the logical outcome of the intentional obfuscation put forth by the sales community – the financial equivalent of, “What do I have to do to get you into this car today?”

Is it semantics? Is it splitting hairs?

We ask our advisors to be good stewards of our money – to act in our best interests. We believe/hope/pray they do so. But who must legally do so?

The recent case of a Merrill Lynch “advisory” team that tried to act in the best interests of its client should be an eye opener to everyone that there’s a tremendous disconnect between what clients expect and what they receive.

By way of background a broker is an intermediary who puts together buyer and seller. A broker, therefore, is NOT in the advice business despite what we may believe.

An “advisor” is purely nominal. The name evokes an image of a trusted partner. In reality an advisor is NOT held to a fiduciary standard.

A true financial planner on the other hand – a CFP® professional as overseen by the CFP Board of Standards – MUST act in the best interests of clients. He or she has a legal, regulatory and one would hope moral obligation to always put the interests of clients first and foremost.

Beyond that a CFP® professional address topics that go beyond investing. It’s a truly comprehensive approach covering topics such as cash flow, taxes, estate planning, retirement planning, debt management, etc.

So what happened at Merrill Lynch and why is it a microcosm of the debate for clarity?

Recently a Merrill Lynch “advisory” team was terminated. Their crime?…they “sold away” meaning they recommended a client invest outside of the firm. The client was told to buy “off platform” which may have been in the best interest of the client but definitely wouldn’t be in the best interest of Merrill Lynch.

The issue is clear. If recommending a client is better of elsewhere but the brokerage firm forbids the recommendation it puts firm and client at direct odds. The broker has an inherent conflict of interest and clearly cannot act in a fiduciary capacity. He or she owes allegiance to the employer. Client be damned. Period. End of story.

Are you still sure “your guy at (insert name of favorite brokerage firm)” is looking out for you?

The only solution is to call a spade a spade or, in this case, a broker a broker. There is room for both brokers/advisors and financial planning professionals. Both serve worthwhile functions. But individuals and firms must be held accountable for the titles they use.

A simple disclosure at the onset of any relationship would clear up the confusion. Here’s one:

“I’m a broker and my primary obligation is to my firm. I’ll do what I can for you but your best interests are secondary.”

Everyone benefits from such clarity. Clients of brokerage/“advisory” firms know they are second class citizens.

Brokerage firms would of course suffer as they could no longer imply a relationship of trust where one does not legally exist.

In the end calling a broker an advisor is deceptive and dangerous. The only way to obtain truly objective and comprehensive advice is to work with someone who has a legal obligation to act in a fiduciary capacity.