Related; Are all conflicts-of-interest the same?

What’s important is this: Towards the end of the ad, which is ostensibly just about the name of the talk show, there’s an “oh by the way” plug for the firm’s services. Front and center among those services is “acting as a fiduciary.”

Whoa!

And, no, that promise wasn’t limited to retirement accounts only.

Could it be Phyllis Borzi is correct? In a recent interview, (“Exclusive Interview with Phyllis C. Borzi: Independent Business Decisions’ May Lead Companies to Apply Fiduciary Standard Broadly,” FiduciaryNews.com, September 20, 2016), the Assistant Secretary of Labor suggested this very thing.

Which gets us back to those abundant Trump signs (mind, I was traveling through traditionally “Blue” states). It’s fairly clear a President Trump will reverse and rescind many of the Executive Orders and regulations promulgated under the Obama administration. Many readers – even those in favor of the Fiduciary Rule – may cheer this, especially with the potentially disastrous Overtime Rule looming upon us beginning December 1.

What kind of impact can we expect should a President Trump rescind the fiduciary rule? (Don’t snicker, with some of the latest polls suggesting Trump’s lead is nearing double digits and with a virtual tie in the Electoral College, current trends suggest Trump has a good chance to win).

Should Trump’s incoming administration repeat the actions of Obama’s incoming administration and immediately revoke all recent DOL rules, will it matter to fiduciary advocates?

In many ways, the cat is already out of the bag. Rule or no rule won’t change the undeniable facts that conflicts-of-interest exist – particularly in specific business models – and those conflicts-of-interest have a demonstrably negative impact on client returns.

Most now know peer-reviewed academic studies prove this. There are no peer-reviewed academic studies that have refuted this.

As a broader audience obtains knowledge and understanding of these facts, business models relying on conflict-of-interest fees (at least the one’s identified as harmful in the peer reviewed studies) will become unsustainable. The market will demand it.

Perhaps this is what we are beginning to see – case in point: Those Financial Engines ads.

How long will it take for the market to wean itself from harmful conflict-of-interest fees?

Recall the amount of time it took for our culture to accept the fact that cigarette smoking is harmful to our health. Arguably, this took more than a generation.

Even today, with all the scientific evidence and all the government regulations, many people still smoke. And I’m not talking about long-time smokers, I’m talking about the young people who take up smoking despite the preponderance of evidence and social pressure to avoid the deadly habit.

Here’s the difference, though. With cigarettes, it takes years for poorer health implications to appear. The most harmful conflict-of-interest fees show up immediately (through measurable asset returns). People tend to react in the near-term. Sometimes this is bad (as in smoking), sometimes this is good (as in getting too close to a hot stove).

That’s from the point of view of the investor. But financial service providers have the same type of near-term perspective. If they see positioning themselves as a fiduciary brings in more business than not positioning themselves as a fiduciary, what do you think they will decide to do?

None of these actions, behaviors, and trends require the ongoing existence of a fiduciary rule. The process that led to the formulation and publication of the rule was necessary to trigger the movement that led tothese actions, behaviors, and trends.

So, with or without a formal “fiduciary rule,” the DOL has successfully moved consumers – and the industry – on the path towards reduced conflicts-of-interest and a better chance for long-term investing success.