Get ready. There’s a new year coming, and it’s not too early toprepare for it. It’s bound to be bold, exciting, and totallyunpredictable.

OK, maybe that’s a bit too far. It’s going to be completelypredictable. For example, forget all the “he can’t do that” stuff-- the DOL’s fiduciary rule is dead. With each passingday, Trump proves he can do the unexpected; therefore, the onlyreasonable thing to do is expect the unexpected.

So, yes, the fiduciary rule is dead. Long live fiduciary!

“Wait!” You might be asking yourself, “How is it possible tosimultaneously hold two contradictory views?”

Think of it this way. In the past, when I would search“Fiduciary News” on the nearest search engine, FiduciaryNews.comarticles would occupy nearly all the top spots. Today, that samesearch offers much greater diversity in sources. More important,some of the top spots include mainstream media, not just the tradejournals.

We don’t just have John Oliver to thank for this (although he doesdeserve some credit for his June show that featured“fiduciary”).

Since the DOL came out with the final version of its newfiduciary rule earlier this year, the mass media has exposed theinvesting public to the issue of self-dealing conflict-of-interestfees to such an extent that “it’s too late to close the barn doorbecause the horse has already left the barn.”

Indeed, even before the actual implementation, major brokeragefirms have staked their positions on either side of theconflict-of-interest fee fence. Guess what that means? It means anadvertising war between brand-name firms with major leaguemarketing budgets. Don’t think this won’t go unnoticed byretirement savers.

And class-action attorneys. This small niche portion of theretirement industry continually seeks to find a fissure, and simpledefinition of “self-dealing fees are bad” helps them in theirpursuit.

They’ve used it against plan sponsors and investment firms. Nowthey’re using it against ancillary service providers likerecord-keepers. If this doesn’t mean “fiduciary” is here tostay…

But wait, there’s more that’s easy to predict. You don’t need tomake a great leap to see how even something as right-minded asencouraging more people to save for retirement, if done improperly,can violate the best interest standard (see “Do State-Run Retirement Plans Breach FiduciaryDuty?” FiduciaryNews.com, November 29, 2016).

For example, as last week’s article pointed out, there arepeople with lower incomes who will do just fine with SocialSecurity. If states force all workers to save for retirement, isthat in the best interest of those who don’t need to save? (Thatmay sound like an incredible assumption, but in any “all ornothing” extreme, boundary condition tests are the rule, not theexception.)

Furthermore, it may strike some as unfair for state-sponsoredplans funded by tax-payer dollars to compete in the same marketwith private providers.

To make matters worse, the DOL has made efforts to exempt statesfrom the burden of ERISA protection for investors, placing theprivate industry at a competitive disadvantage.

So, here’s an easy prediction: Trump’s DOL will quickly quashthis ERISA exemption.

The predictions get better. With bipartisan support, we shallsoon see legislation that makes 401(k) MEPs the norm. It’sonly a matter of whether it’s passed under the currentadministration or the next (and here, you can expect a tug-of-warto see which president will be remembered for signing this act thatmay surpass ERISA in its significance).

Once passed, the competitive markets will take over, obviatingthe need for state-run retirement plans for private employees. Butdon’t expect the state-sponsored efforts to go quietly into thenight.

Just like the big budget marketing war between the brokers,we’re likely to see a campaign of even greater intensity, except inthis case it will be one-sided. The states will not be able tojustify the advertising expense. Even if they try, it will be toolate, as privately sponsored alternatives will have exposed thetrue risk of state-run retirement plans.

The hard truth is 401(k) MEPs benefit plans sponsors andemployees alike. For plan participants, 401(k) MEPs offer morevariety of choice with better service and lower fees compared tothe state-sponsored alternative. For plan sponsors, 401(k)MEPs allow corporate executives to delegate administration and thebulk, (and, depending on the exact wording of the legislation,perhaps all) of the fiduciary liability.

The shifting of the administrative burden away from the companyand toward professionals more equipped to handle retirement planswill not only produce better and cheaper plans, but will permitcompanies to focus on increase productivity and earnings, and thisin turn will fuel economic growth.

See, when you expect the unexpected, predictions come easy.