I detect...bias...in the reporting.
That's actually a pretty neutral way to describe the fiduciary rule. The effect is as noted in taildragger's post.
It keeps the burden on the investor to figure out what the advisor's real motivation is.
Obama’s rule seems awfully vague and prone to lawsuits. How do you prove that a financial advisor is or is not working in the best interest of the client.
This would be like dictating that a grocery store must be working in the best interest of its customers.
Let the BUYER be ware! Competition is what causes the merchant to want to treat his customers well.
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).