A decade ago, if you ran into the proverbial man-on-the-street, he'd have no clue of the importance of using a fiduciary to manage his assets. Today, it's much more likely he'd tell you, "Yes, having a fiduciary is very important." Of course, he might be hard-pressed to tell you why.

More on that in a moment.

In the meantime, how did we get from 10 years ago to today? I had a chance to talk to Skip Schweiss, incoming FPA president, about this consumer transition, what it means, and how much more needs to be done (see "Exclusive Interview: Skip Schweiss Says Public Today 'Much More Aware' of Need to Work With Fiduciary," FiduciaryNews.com, November 19, 2019).

Maybe you can pin the whole thing on John Oliver. In June of 2016, the comedian's HBO Show "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" featured an exposé on the DOL's (then) new "fiduciary" rule. In that now-famous 20-minute segment, millions of Americans came to understand this "fiduciary" thing. Maybe they didn't quite understand what made it important, but Oliver's mass market made those masses believe "fiduciary" meant better investment returns and a more comfortable retirement.

OK, we all know it's a little more complicated than that. And that could spell trouble.

Why? Because the public bought into "fiduciary" hook, line, and sinker, without a clear understanding of the why. More significantly, the evidence lay buried behind the ivy-covered walls of boredom. Fiduciary advocates, so excited in the moment, simply went with the prevailing current.

They didn't stop to think for a moment that, while they had won (temporarily) the minds of the regulators, they had failed to provide the solid (and empirical) reasoning for their cause.

It's not as if it isn't there. It is. I've had a hand in reporting on it. That reporting was actually cited in a footnote of the White House release promoting the new rule.

But it was a footnote, not a headline. The public can't be expected to read the footnotes. And many never get past the headlines. And those headlines made a promise.

What happens in the next sustained bear market? Will the public think it was duped because, for all their support of "fiduciary," it failed to protect their downside? Will those competitors unwilling to follow the fiduciary imperative seize the opening and say, "See, I told you so"?

Schweiss is right when he says "there's still plenty of evidence that consumers could be better educated on these issues." There may still be time to get on with this education.

And there may now be a window of opportunity to move the ball forward. Recently, the SEC signaled it may want to consider the role of revenue sharing in this whole conflict-of-interest matter. Morningstar quickly and quite vocally echoed this concern.

It's not a new concern. It's also a concern long ago addressed by academic research. This, in fact, was the subject of the article cited by the White House release. It involves real numbers.

They say numbers lack a certain pizzazz; math puts people to sleep. Yet, without numbers, the case cannot be made.

So, what can be done? Rather than trying to make up yardage in one long pass, maybe a drip-drip-drip strategic of three yards and a cloud of dust might be just what's needed to wear down a disinterested public. It's not an attention-grabbing headline, but over time it gives impressive weight to the fiduciary argument.

It is that gravitas that will be needed during the next bear market. Because, when the opposition points to investment losses and says, "See, I told you so," the fiduciary can quickly counter, "It could have been worse – you could be suffering from the double whammy of a down market and conflict-of-interest fees."

That's a comeback that would certainly make John Oliver smile a wry smile.

READ MORE:

Instant Insights /

Public today more aware of "fiduciary" but – Carosa

More From HR Executive

Related Stories

Recommended For You