Now, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I work for the SEC, but life has placed the burden of (among other things) being a compliance officer upon my shoulders.

Here's the thing about being a compliance officer, if you have the wherewithal, you can probably figure out a way around most things. I don't have the wherewithal, so my philosophy is to keep things as plain-vanilla as possible. I'll let the other guys try to pierce the edge of the envelope. When it comes to compliance, I prefer to keep things as easy as possible. If that means living within certain constraints, so be it.

It's with attitude that I explored this whole "adviser" vs. "advisor" question. This is what I've found:

The title of the relevant statute, as we're all aware, is the "Investment Advisers Act." Notice the spelling. In all places, the SEC references the term with an "e" spelling (as in "adviser"). It's pretty clear that, if you're going to call yourself an "adviser" as it pertains to the offering investment advice, it means you're registered with the SEC as an "investment adviser."

Many within the industry prefer the term "advisor," which, in general, appears to be an all-inclusive term. On the other hand, most RIAs (at least, I'm not too sure about the brokerage community), understand it's important to be circumspect when using the term "adviser." In the grand scheme, the issue may be moot since clients see either word and imagine the same service.

Except that's not necessarily true. Once you blanket yourself with the term "adviser," you are acknowledging your status as a fiduciary in the eyes of the SEC. The same is not necessarily true (although it might be; hence, the confusion) when using the term "advisor." And, if you take on the mantle of fiduciary, you better act accordingly.

Which brings us to the story behind the story. It appears the majority of the trade press employs the term "advisor" when referencing investment services.

There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, that's the safer approach, since "adviser" has a specific meaning.

For some unknown reason, the editorial board of the New York Times has taken the opposite view. They only use the word "adviser."

This recently resulted in a laughably ironic headline meant to promote the virtues of using a fiduciary adviser rather than a non-fiduciary advisor.

The article, titled "Before the Advice, Check Out the Adviser," alludes to non-fiduciaries not acting in the best interests of clients.

It even accuses a well-known "too-big-to-fail" brokerage firm of touting themselves as "Trusted Advisers" (note the spelling). The Times even links to the broker's webpage. Nowhere on the broker's site could you find the word "adviser." They only used the term "advisor."

 At least Merrill Lynch gets it. Too bad the New York Times doesn't.