From the Too-Big-To-Crowd: "The DOL's New Fiduciary Rule will destroy us – er, we mean – harm small investors!"

Greek Chorus: "It's the end of the world as we know it!" 

From the Class-Action Crowd: "A victory for the plaintiffs in Tibble vs. Edison will open the floodgates to plan sponsor lawsuits."

Greek Chorus: "It's the end of the world as we know it!"

From the Washington Lobby Crowd: "Harmonize! Harmonize! Lest the Eagle of Regulation peck out your eyes!"

Greek Chorus (in pronounced harmony): "It's the end of the world as we know it!"

But, here's what I thought after listening to Fred: "What if the coming 'change' isn't really a change after all?"

Consider this: Already we're seeing that the DOL and the SEC have been working together. Also, the DOL is clearly doing the job it is assigned to do. It's not overreaching, as some have claimed.

The appearance of a Rube Goldberg-like regulatory process only seems that way because the regulatory process is, essentially, something akin to the imaginary contraptions of Rube Goldberg. All that's missing are the funny cartoon drawings. But that's not the DOL's fault. If anything, the fault lies in the Washington culture … but I digress. 

But this faux-change gets even deeper. Although we haven't seen the actual wording of the DOL's proposal, we can read the tea leaves. It's likely to merely repeat what we already see for RIAs, complete with those awful (if you're a purist) exemptions, by extending those rules to brokers.

There are enough loopholes in the current rules to satisfy anyone intent on continuing the standard conflict-of-interest model they've profited from all these years. In fact, why call it the "Fiduciary Rule" when the "Fiduciary Swiss Cheese" might be more appropriate? 

Even Tibble holds less promise than one would think. The conflicts-of-interest exposed in that case (and many others like it) have effectively educated plan sponsors. Today, few, if any, remain unaware of the potential personal fiduciary liability caused by these pricing tactics.

That doesn't mean there are other ways to hide fees that plan sponsors have not yet discovered. It just means the low-hanging fruit for class-action attorneys may have already been fully harvested. 

So, why do the various industry factions insist on arguing and worrying about these issues? There are, believe it or not, far bigger fish to fry.

But perhaps that's the entire point of this needless diversion.