I am not the least bit surprised by these findings. First, on the so-called "fiduciary standard," rarely has more time been wasted on semantics than the substance of what it means to service the retail investor. The very act of determining proper "suitability" is what provides the moral and intellectual basis for acting in a client's interests in the first place, and whatever "standard" is chosen, we are talking, or SHOULD be talking, about what is best for the end client, who has endured quite a bit in the past decade.

The second joke being foisted on the retail investor is the true cost of the "fee based" advisor, as opposed to a commission based one. Derided by the RIA community as greedy churn artists, the retail investor doesn't realize that if an RIA is charging a 1% management fee, and the portfolio has risen by 5% in a year, they have just turned over 20% of their profits to the "advisor." In fixed income, this is even more pronounced: a commissioned broker is lucky to make 2% on a bond trade even before he splits it with the house- an RIA gets 1% for each and every year that bond is held in portfolio. Which is the more economical outcome for the investor for a bond that could be held for 10 years? You don't need to be a Level III CFA to figure that one out.

What this all comes down to is a war for the investing public's assets based on branding: whether RIA, CFP, CFA or ChFC, there is quite a bit of self-aggrandizing nonsense being spewed by each of these chartering organizations, and from where I sit, I don't see the retail client being served any better than a competent- and I stress that word- commissioned broker. For all of these claimed honorarium practitioners are festooning themselves with, we have wealth managers who do not manage, planners who do no planning, and "experts" who do little more than act as mere conduits for insurance, mutual fund and indexed products to load portfolios with and collect fees. The target date funds mentioned are a prime example of the sloth and indolence being used as a substitute for genuine portfolio management. Its a disgrace, but the industry is quite content to have a conversation with itself regarding the matter.