[quote=tenthtee]

If you want to differentiate your brand, consider writing a really good article on why the public should consider doing business with RRs vs. RIAs, and try to get it picked up by the online news services. There are plenty of good reasons why this is an important story right now, I don't see why you have to limit your audience to RRs or RIAs who inappropriately feel superior to RRs, or at least are telling stories to the misinformed general public. If I was the editor of RR, I'd go for it.

Gone are the days of RRs pitching GLD. RRs are real financial planners, who help people diversify against time and taxes and protect the downside and help find steady growth against inflation. Put yourmoney there $$.

[/quote]

Interestingly, at the wirehouses, for example, most registered reps are dually licensed (can act as the IAR of the corporate RIA, i.e. by taking the Series 65). And Schwab and Fidelity have built nice businesses around independent FAs who are hybrid (dually registered). Isn't that the trend?

And you say that RRs offer financial planning services. Is that legal? My understanding was that registered reps could only offer financial advice if that advice were incidental to the trade they were making for the client --- unless, of course, that FA was a CFP (an accreditation the SEC respects), or, again, held a 65. RR's cannot offer comprehensive financial advice --- that's what the law says, no? 

And do you think that the SEC will force all retail financial advisors to act in a fiduciary capacity anyway when it finally rules on the subject (it is still studying the issue)? Why would it be better to do business with RRs over RIAs? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, because, while RRs are more professional than at anytime in the past, the fiduciary standard is a higher standard of conduct. What am I not seeing?