I'll give you an example of what I mean. Phil talks about the future – actually two futures. You're going to like one of them. You might not like the other. We'll save the bad news for the end.

First, the future where all surviving retirement plan advisors provide either 3(38) or 3(16) services. In addition, they also must accommodate HSAs within the retirement plan framework.

Why? In a nutshell, according to Chiricotti, it's all the government's fault. Regulators have persecuted plan sponsors to the point where they don't want retirement plan fiduciary liability any longer. The trouble is, the 401(k) represents such a successful savings vehicle ("the most successful in history," say Chiricotti), that companies must offer it in order to attract the best employees.

Problem #1: How do plan sponsors reduce their fiduciary liability?

Answer #1: By hiring advisors to act in either a 3(38) or 3(16) capacity. (Or, to really reduce that liability, put the company employees into an MEP. But that's another story beyond the scope of this article).

The next government-caused dilemma involves your favorite topic: health care.

With more people without health care and higher costs prior to the onset of ObamaCare, the health care needs of future retirees remain precarious at best. Worse, we've seen companies exiting as health care benefit providers since it's cheaper to pay the fine than to take on the long-term liability of health care costs. And, short of across-the-board tort reform (which many have long said is the only solution to the health care conundrum), those costs are expected to continue to move higher. 

Problem #2: How do companies offer some opportunity for employees to address their future health care needs during retirement?

Answer #2: By offering Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) as part of their existing benefits structure. These savings vehicles would be the health care equivalent of retirement savings. 

So advisers who wish to survive into the future must provide these three services: 3(38); 3(16) and HSA. The alternative is to exit the industry. 

Which gets us to Phil's second scenario: A future without retirement advisors.

Why? Because, while industry lobbyists waste time and credibility arguing over how many angels can dance on the pin of the fiduciary standard, the government is slowly sneaking into the business of providing retirement plans to private individuals.

Sure, it'll start small with the government serving the market no private provider appears to want (small companies). But, like the proverbial camel's nose under the tent, soon, like we see with today's health care offering, larger companies will cede that duty to the government. 

And the government does such a great job handling the retirement plans of its own workers (see Detroit, New York City, and almost anywhere in California). 

That's the future world according to Phil. 

Love it, or do something about it.