It just raised my suspicions. Any reporting that amounts to implicitly demonizing corporations is usually biased. Glad it was actually fair.
What the reporting didn’t do was clarify that there was a sensible third way to handle the issue, which the gov’t failed to allow as an option: transparency, requiring informing investors who was paying the advisor how much (so the investor could know whether he was a customer or a product).
True that.
...requiring informing investors who was paying the advisor how much (so the investor could know whether he was a customer or a product).
I'd like that too but I'm afraid you would end up like the mortgage industry with dozens of disclosure documents that no one actually reads because their eyes glaze over.
If there's money to be made by obscuring things, and in this case there is, things will be obscured.