Confused? Yes.

My biggest concern is with the concept of those who advertise themselves as an "advisor", which in my research is NOT a term found in the Securities Act. The term found in the Securities Act is spelled "adviser", and this article and comments, use both spellings.

That would be fine, (using two spellings) if you were legally assured that either spelling is considered the same. Yes, they are in the dictionary, but not so in the law.

In other countries (Canada for one) it has been found that brokers can earn more trust (and therefore more money) if they conceal their broker-type licenses (dealing rep is the term in Canada) and they can cheat the system just a little bit by calling themselves an "advisor" (which is a mere title, that anyone can use according to FINRA), rather than an "adviser", which would mean they were breaking the law.

In the end, the public (and most investment industry experts) have no idea if there is a difference between an "advisor" and an "adviser", and thus the clever companies get to have their cake and eat it too. They can earn the trust of the client, more easily, and not have to hold themselves to the fiduciary standard that the "adviser" licensed person must. Big commissions.

Does any of this make any sense? Does anyone have an interest in commenting upon the different terms, the FINRA explanations about there being two VERY different terms. The fiduciary duty of an "adviser", verses the suitability duty of an "advisor", etc.\

I am interested in dialogue with the aim to do serious research and debate into this topic. My own info sent to HBO's John Oliver, and his 20 minutes production on this topic is found here for more background. Thanks for any dialogue. [email protected]

http://unpublishedottawa.com/letter/76561/third-world-style-securities-…