Does the way you spell advisor change your obligation to clients? The question of whether RIAs should describe themselves as advisers instead of advisors, to show their adherence to the federal Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 and, for that matter, whether Financial Planning should follow suit has come up in a couple of recent conversations with Skip Schweiss, managing director of advisor advocacy and industry affaris for TD Ameritrade Institutional.
While we both agreed that a vowel was a pretty weak hook on which to hang a planners fiduciary responsibility, his underlying point remains valid: that the confusing array of labels taken by financial professionals has raised questions for consumers about who exactly is regulated by the 40 Act, and who owes a fiduciary duty to clients.
Weve moved from brokers to wealth managers to financial advisors to financial advisers, the term that created the fiduciary advice model, Schweiss said with audible frustration. In the process, he said, nonfiduciary advisors have wound up confusing the consumer.
A cynic might suggest that the resulting muddle is in fact the point. Indeed, our special report on the newest regulatory priorities out of Washington highlights other areas where the regulatory differences between brokers and RIAs are becoming blurred, with the SEC overlapping with FINRA in both coverage think dually registered and hybrid advisors and agendas.
Our professional cynic, FP columnist Bob Veres, goes even farther in
Meanwhile, other RIAs may want to ask themselves: Whats in their own name? And does a label like wealth manager to take one posh-sounding term boost their reputation with consumers, or make it more murky?
Read more:
