Image alt tag

Error!

There was a problem contacting the server. Please try after sometime.

Sorry, we are unable to process your request.

Error!

We're sorry, but the Insights and Intelligence Tool is temporarily unavailable

If this problem persists, or if you need immediate assistance, please contact Customer Service at 1-888-522-2388.

Error!

We're sorry, but the Literature Center checkout function is temporarily unavailable.

If this problem persists, or if you need immediate assistance, please contact Customer Service at 1-888-522-2388.

Tracked Funds

You have 0 funds on your mutual fund watch list.

Begin by selecting funds to create a personalized watch list.

(as of 12/05/2015)

Pending Orders

You have 0 items in your cart.

Subscribe and order forms, fact sheets, presentations, and other documents that can help advisers grow their business.

Reset Your Password

Financial Professionals*

Your password must be a minimum of characters.

Confirmation Message

Your LordAbbett.com password was successully updated. This page will be refreshed after 3 seconds.

OK

 

Practice Management

The confusing array of labels taken by financial professionals has raised consumers' questions about who exactly is regulated by the '40 Act, and who owes a fiduciary duty to clients.

This Practice Management article is intended for financial advisors only (registered representatives of broker/dealers or associated persons of Registered Investment Advisors).
 

Does the way you spell “advisor” change your obligation to clients?

The question of whether RIAs should describe themselves as “advisers” instead of “advisors,” to show their adherence to the federal Investment Advisers Act of 1940—and, for that matter, whether Financial Planning magazine should follow suit—has come up in a couple of recent conversations with Skip Schweiss, managing director of advisor advocacy and industry affairs for TD Ameritrade Institutional.

While we both agreed that a vowel was a pretty weak hook on which to hang a planner’s fiduciary responsibility, his underlying point remains valid: that the confusing array of labels taken by financial professionals has raised questions for consumers about who exactly is regulated by the ‘40 Act, and who owes a fiduciary duty to clients.

“We’ve moved from brokers to wealth managers to financial advisors to financial advisers, the term that created the fiduciary advice model,” Schweiss said with audible frustration. In the process, he said, nonfiduciary advisors have wound up “confusing the consumer.”

A cynic might suggest that the resulting muddle is in fact the point. Indeed, Financial Planning’s special report on the newest regulatory priorities out of Washington highlights other areas where the regulatory differences between brokers and RIAs are becoming blurred, with the SEC overlapping with FINRA in both coverage—think dually registered and hybrid advisors—and agendas.

Our professional cynic, FP columnist Bob Veres, goes even further in his column this month, arguing that the SEC’s efforts to examine more RIAs is an expensive waste of time and taxpayer money, especially when focused on advisors who park client assets with a custodian “and have no way to touch the money themselves.”

Meanwhile, other RIAs may want to ask themselves: What’s in their own name? And does a label like "wealth manager"—to take one posh-sounding term—boost their reputation with consumers, or make it more murky? 

— Rachel F. Elson 

 

RELATED CONTENT

Please confirm your literature shipping address

Please review the address information below and make any necessary changes.

All literature orders will be shipped to the address that you enter below. This information can be edited at any time.

Current Literature Shipping Address

* Required field