August 5, 2010
If we want to study whether a 'fiduciary duty' is better for consumers, then we should also study if grass is green, if water is wet, and if deserts are dry.
A fiduciary duty requires a "professional" to do what is in their clients best interest. How could anything less than this be good for clients or consumers or even a "profession"?
There shouldn't be a 'fiduciary-lite' created. Do what's best for the American consumers and force American corporations to do what's best for consumers instead of continuing to offer inferior products/advice with superior fees and expenses.
John Adams said that one of his fundamental doctrines for government was that you had to "protect the sheep from the wolves". It is unreasonable to expect all American consumers to know the difference between an investment adviser regulated under the 1940 legislation and the 1934 legislation. It's also unreasonable that we're still using legislation which is over 70 years old for the financial services and its "professionals".
Make all financial services professionals be fiduciaries, and you'll see that more consumers will utilize them. Make insurance companies and investment advisers offer best products at best prices in a transparent fashion, rather than just pushing their own companies inferior products w/ superior commissions and fees.
Sincerely,
Luke Dean