The Compensation Conundrum: Why the DOL Got It Wrong

This is my personal view, but there is a continuing misleading conversation linking compensation and doing what is best for the customer. The rule is in general very simple – do what is in the customer’s best interest. If the issuer paying the advisor provides the best solution for the customer, it meets the definition of meeting the Fiduciary standard. If it does not, the advisor should have been embarrassed to have suggested it as a solution before the rule was even suggested. Everyone still gets to make a good living, but the focus moves from how much the advisor can make off this customer to how much can we make through good advice and decisions. For the skilled and honorable advisors, this will just be a blip and another piece of paper to sign and file as they already put the customer first. For the advisors who see their incomes drop, it is dropping because they have to do the right thing for their customer. Is that really a bad thing?