That's when you face a surprising puzzle: the rollover conundrum.

The Department of Labor's "Conflict-of-Interest" (aka "fiduciary") rule is meant to prevent retirement savers from being placed in investments that fail to meet their "best interests." While inarguably a laudable goal, it's possible the uncertainty of the precise definition of "conflict-of-interest" could lead to retirement savers being left not knowing what's in their own best interests.

It's not because they won't have access to professional advice. It's because, based on the prevailing interpretation of what represents a "conflict-of-interest," all investment professionals will be tainted. How is this so?

The DOL's fiduciary rule doesn't distinguish between the types of "conflict-of-interest" fees that harm investor returns and the everyday "conflicts-of-interest" that have yet to show a correlation with negative investor returns.

Here's an example of the difference between the two. In the first case, several peer-reviewed studies have concluded that mutual funds that feature self-dealing (i.e., "conflict-of-interest") fees like 12b-1 fees, front-end and back-end loads, and revenue sharing tend to perform anywhere from 1%-3% worse than funds without self-dealing fees. Remember what a self-dealing fee is. A self-dealing fee is a fee generated as a result of a transaction. If the transaction doesn't occur, there is no fee. If the transaction occurs, there is a fee. This is a classic "conflict-of-interest" scenario.

Contrast this to the second case, where you're shopping around for an adviser for your soon-to-be IRA rollover. That adviser can't be expected to work for nothing.

Asking someone to provide you a service without being paid is generally frowned upon. In fact, America had a four-year long civil war in the mid-nineteenth century just to prevent this sort of thing.

Now, no one wants to be on the wrong side of history, so if you're an honorable person, you fully intend to pay this expert for any advice given.

Here's the catch: some believe receiving payment for advice represents a conflict-of-interest (we won't know for sure until this is tested in court). That means the adviser needs to disclose to the potential IRA rollover client, even if rolling over into an IRA is in the client's best interest, that any advice recommending the client do what is in the client's best interest is considered "conflicted" advice.

In other words, it's a "conflict-of-interest" to tell the client to do what's in the client's best interest.

Got it? You're a professional. You should be able to explain this. The client is, well … the client makes widgets for a living. They've got as much chance understanding your explanation as you've got understanding their intricate description of the process of widget making.

The only difference is you can hire that prospective client to help you make widgets – and pay him – without the need for credibility-staining disclosure language. For the client to work for you, it's just a job. For you to work for the client, now that's what we in these here fiduciary parts call a "conflict-of-interest."

Now that's a conundrum.