Why Your Broker Doesn't Put You First

June 23, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (1)

Have your heard this old tale? During a flood, a kind-hearted frog lets a scorpion ride to safety on his back. But, just as they reach the middle of the river, the scorpion stings the frog. As they both sink beneath the waves, the frog asks, "Why did you sting me?"

"It's my nature," says the scorpion. "That's what I do."

When you choose someone to help you with financial advice, it is important to know "what they do."

[In Pictures: 10 Key Retirement Ages to Plan For.]

In professions where the provider is helping individuals with highly personal and important areas like health, credentials mean that the person has earned the right to be trusted. There are understood standards and norms. Doctors are credentialed for his field of medicine. Chiropractors have a different type of training and certification than an oncologist. We know who we are seeing and what they are supposed to be able to do. Attorneys who have passed the bar went through law school and have the legal right to practice.

Such clear certification is very confusing in financial services. It may look like a professional broker at Merrill Lynch or Morgan Stanley provides the same service as someone who is a registered investment advisor. But nothing could be further from the truth. This distinction is critical to understand no matter how much you trust the individual.

A person who is a broker, is just that. He acts as an agent between a buyer and seller of products, usually for a commission. Legally, an individual who works for a "broker/dealer" must pass a "Series 7" exam, which teaches one about the stock market and securities to prepare the individual to sell commissioned products. Brokers operate under a "suitability standard" under which the broker is required to make investments he judges to be suitable for his clients. He can't sell micro-cap volatile stocks to old ladies. Brokers and their firms are regulated by a "self regulated organization" (not a government agency) called FINRA. In the industry, brokers are measured by the amount of commissions and fees that they generate from selling products. Product providers pay more for "distribution" through brokers.

[See Why Working Longer Won't Close Retirement Shortfalls.]

Registered investment advisors (RIAs) help individuals manage their money. They must pass a "Series 65" exam, which tests how well one knows how to help a client invest and operate under a fiduciary standard. That means an advisor is required to act in his clients' best interests, and disclose to them all conflicts of interest. These advisors are either registered in the state in which they operate, or with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). RIAs are usually measured by assets under management (AUM) because the more assets they manage, the more their fees. They submit lengthy ADV II forms online showing any conflicts of interest, sanctions from the SEC, and exactly how they are paid.

RIAs can't use customer testimonials in advertising and must disclose when they pay for client referrals. Brokers can use testimonials and hide fees they are paid for referrals.

Under Dodd-Frank, legislators are now considering implementing a fiduciary standard for brokers. They are fit to be tied. The central issue is that if they are required to put your interests ahead of theirs, they will have to disclose conflicts of interest and fees. FINRA is spending a fortune to fight this because if they disclose all fees they receive from all parties, investors will get wise and they will earn less. FINRA's CEO earned nearly $3 million last year, and FINRA's top 10 employees all earn over $1 million. They don't want their members paying them less, so everyone is pulling out all the stops.

[See 7 Ways to Stay Ahead of Inflation in Retirement.]

A good analogy for the broker versus investment advisor is the difference between an optician and an ophthalmologist. An optometrist conducts eye exams and makes sure that you have healthy eyes but makes money primarily selling you glasses and contact lenses. When you have a cataract, or something serious, you go to a medical doctor—or an ophthalmologist. He has taken a Hippocratic oath to practice medicine ethically. He sells nothing. He puts your health first and can also examine your eyes.

Do you want to trust your money to someone who is just paid for advice? Or a broker who makes money providing advice in order to sell products?

Just remember: If you're carrying someone across the river, you may want to check on "what they do."

Mitch Tuchman is CEO and founder of MarketRiders, an online investment advisory and management service helping Americans invest for retirement. MarketRiders gives investors greater peace of mind knowing that they are leveraging the best thinking of Nobel Laureates and the investing methods used by the world's most elite institutions and wealthiest families. MarketRiders is on the investor's side, helping reduce investment costs and risks, and increasing retirement savings.

Tags:
investing,
mutual funds

Reader Comments Read all comments (1)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

It is important that the public understand fiduciary laws, and their vital role in regulation of markets. Since most are ignorant of this, and it is never clearly described, the public is easily deceived. Fiduciary laws are a terrific and flexible way to regulate these markets where trust is so central.

Instead, the public has been sold on the idea of regulation; which means a body of corruptible regulators, bound by laws crafted by corruptible legislators, all coupled with defacto indemnification from any real accountability. In this country we used to venerate the courts for their ability to settle these sticky wickets of life in a complex economy with free-markets, professions and utilities/monopolies. Courts, and lawyers well understand that each of these markets function differently, should be handled differently by gov't. But, we've taken the role of the courts out of the equation. We've got regulation coupled with indemnity, which creates an utterly perverse situation for us all.

It's astounding to see that the traders and investors are essentially arguing that they aren't professionals. Well then, let's let anyone have that same access, if they wish to be seen as less responsible and less restrained and trained than your average real estate agent. This is a perversion of the market, and is effectively an intrusion of gov't into areas it shouldn't enter. These markets should be bound by the venerable body of fiduciary laws and the courts, the SEC should stand to investigate these charges, demand transparency from firms of a certain size. Under fiduciary laws, that "sh!tty deal" would be recoverable, for breach of trust. The regulator's hands were tied, sadly, shockingly.

Thank you for your sound call for this oft-overlooked aspect of our legal tradition. Sadly, no where in our debate nor in the legislative process do we seek the most eloquent, efficient and equitable solutions. The truth serves no one. But, all our bills, all our debates are serving some undisclosed interest, that decency, and journalism demands be exposed; though all too often it isn't.

scottindallas of TX 10:08AM June 24, 2011

The Smarter Investor

Get real-life investing advice from experts including Monument Wealth Management, Asset Strategy Consultants, Smart401k and Russell & Company.

advertisement

Slide Shows

Emerging Markets to Consider in 2013

The Philippines, China and other key emerging markets for this year.

Why Dow 14,000 Is a Tough Milestone

History shows this mark to be one of the most difficult for the market.

7 Mutual Funds That Make Huge Bets

These funds invest much of their portfolios in one company.

Latest Video

advertisement