By: Karsten Kaczmar

Really appreciate this article, and the roots of “Fiduciary” explanation as well. As a Registered Investment Advisor myself who specializes in transforming capitalism through environmentally and socially responsible wealth management, I share a very similar story. And yes, when I was at Merrill Lynch there was no way to market myself as a queer, poly, revolutionize-capitalism-based advisor. Without going independent and starting my own firm, I never could have fully embodied my calling.

That said, there’s nothing in any of our licensing that I recall coming across that requires us to be a fiduciary for a client’s bloodline to “ten generations” or anything remotely similar. We have fiduciary obligation to our client. This also doesn’t require us to “make them the most money,” it requires us to act in their financial best interest even above and beyond our own. We also CAN prioritize other things like environmental or social impact as long as the client lets us know that’s what they want and we document it as such. I’ve been doing this for almost a decade and we monitor our compliance quite closely, and not even our compliance consultation firm has ever brought up anything on the issues mentioned in the article.

I don’t at ALL doubt that the origins and history may have a dark side, but I felt it worth clarifying that folks don’t need to be afraid of “fiduciaries,” and its much more likely that you’ll be taken advantage of by a broker, someone “duly registered” (registered as both a broker and a fiduciary and able to switch hats at any time) or basically anyone in insurance saying they are providing you with any sort of financial product other than term life insurance (there are exceptions, but they are not terribly common).

I certainly could be missing something, I’m open to that. I just felt it worth sharing some of my experience in the industry on that particular issue.