Mr Bowman -- I was recently invited to a talk you are hosting on the future of finance. I had hoped to see a change in attitude after John Roger's "sudden" departure. Unfortunately, CFAI's website most recent post from you is more than a year old.
You said in last year's post "the industry" has an ethics problem. You make no distinction between CFA charterholders who behave ethically (or at least make every effort) and the brokers who get all the media attention and "star" in character in Hollywood movies. You have seen one broker, you have seen them all?
Why doesn't CFA Institute make a distinction between those who do the right thing, and those who do not? Why throw everyone in the industry under the same bus?
Where are the articles showing, by example, the right thing to do? There certainly are loads of newspaper articles showing advisors doing the wrong thing. There are some CFAI magazine articles featuring a LAWYER droning on endlessly about legal minutia. There are many with a LAWYER second guessing the behavior of an advisor using 20/20 hindsight.
If there are any articles (by CFA Institute or by others) where advisors and customers sit down together and discuss how a ethical dilemma could be better handled... I haven't seen one.
The best leaders throughout history have lead by example. The ones who send their lawyer to tell employees and customers to "do what we say, not what we do" -- they end up portrayed as villains in the movies.
Should advisors and customers bring their attorneys to every meeting? If the customer's attorney talks with the bank attorney, how does that inspire confidence and trust between customer and advisor? Both the advisor and the customer have been sidelined.
I don't see a future for CFA Institute at all if it constantly attacks the integrity of its own membership, while promoting more and more lawyers as the answer to every question.
If George Bailey were alive today, CFA Institute would be telling the public he is part of an industry with an ethics problem. That is not helpful to members or clients. Telling advisors and clients that "its time for a fiduciary culture" is something an attorney would write.
George Bailey didn't have his lawyer talk to his neighbors or write complicated legal prose. He didn't take out advertisements and testify before Congress that the entire industry had an ethics problem.
Bailey spoke directly with his customers, explaining how OUR (both his and theirs) deposits and loans benefited neighbor after neighbor. Then he listened to their fears and helped them understand the risks of a "bank run". That is why the town regained their trust in him.
It seems every publication I see from CFA Institute involves lawyers, legal-ease and an implied message that all brokers are the same unethical bunch. Washington DC (both politicians and regulators) talk at the public, not with the public, deciding (with lobbyists... lawyers again) all sorts of important things behind closed doors. New regulations are issued as a fait accompli. Is it any wonder the public doesn't trust this process?