The first Medical School opened in the American Colonies the decade before the Revolutionary War, but American medical schools didn't become standardized until the early Twentieth Century when the scathing Flexner Report exposed drastic inconsistencies among the then existing 155 medicals in the United States and Canada.
This isn't surprising. It took a long time for the profession to evolve from barbers acting as surgeons and the regular application of leeches to remove "poisoned" blood. Today, it takes nearly a decade of schooling and no less than three separate certifications to lay claim to the title "Doctor." Without this evidentiary material, falsely claiming to be a doctor can lead to arrest. Even if you did stay at a Holiday Inn Express the night before.
Imagine, then, the outrage we would have today if, following the Flexner Report, some government bureaucrat decided, when writing the new standards that would define "Doctor," that author decided to draft a proposal that would be "Business Model Neutral." She wouldn't want to upset all those moonlighting barbers who wanted to be surgeons. And, Lo! The thought of putting the poor leech salesmen out of business for want of mere science. Why stop at leeches, though, why not include purveyors of snake oil as well.
Recommended For You
If you think this all a fantasy, then you haven't read SEC Chair Mary Shapiro's latest offer to redraft the fiduciary standard in a "business model neutral" manner. There's a reason why she tops Santa's 2011 401k Naughty List (for the complete Naughty and Nice List, see "Santa's 2011 401k Nice and Naughty List," FiduciaryNews.com, December 13, 2011). In fact, this latest statement caps an entire year of fiduciary naughtiness on the part of the SEC. From producing a partisan rift in what should have been a fairly innocuous report to misplaying the sentiment of Congress, she has at least been consistent in her rhetorical incompetence.
And now she's making intimations of an impending "business model neutral" proposal. This is the "fiduciary lite" we've all feared. It's the "all fiduciaries are equal except some fiduciaries are more regulated than other fiduciaries." It's a total disregard of nearly eight centuries of fiduciary tradition and trust law. It needs to be rethought and rejected.
Sure the lobbyists will complain.
Just like the barbers and the leech salesmen complained when we finally decided to put a person's physical health ahead of any particular business model.
Why can't regulators possess the same fortitude for a person's fiscal health?
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.