In April, Knut Rostad, President of the Institute for the Fiduciary Standard, plucking the words right from SIFMA's current position statement on the fiduciary standard, described its objective thusly: to "not subject (brokers) to other fiduciary obligations (the Advisers Act fiduciary standard, other statutory standards.)" SIFMA may be consistent with its message, but the results of a recent survey reveal rank and file advisers don't agree with the industry's top lobbying group. In that light, it seems only sporting to offer the beleaguered group these three helpful tips:

1. The days of the broker business model are dwindling. Industry demographics show an alarming trend towards (at least) dual registration or, increasingly more often, the complete forsaking of the brokerage license for the "registered investment adviser" banner. Let's not be too lofty here. The reason why brokers are evolving (if we dare use that word) into advisers is because the marketplace demands it. Continuing to faithfully wave the pennant of a has-been business model will only lead the organization to the fate of the dodo. Don't lead the organization to the fate of the dodo.

2. The industry's true front line players tend to know the most when it comes to the goings-on of the actual marketplace. When they overwhelmingly approve of a fiduciary standard "no less stringent than the one imposed under the 1940 Act," that should be telling you what their clients are telling them. When they say the fiduciary standard does not impose any additional cost and it doesn't reduce client choice, that should be telling you their clients are happy. To oppose this reality will only make the clients unhappy. Don't make the clients unhappy.