Long talked about (see related articles below), the gauntlet has recently been thrown down on the notion that all matters fiduciary might best be solved by reining in the rampant use of overlapping titles (see "Exclusive Interview: Harold Evensky on Fiduciary: The Name is the Game," FiduciaryNews.com, January 17, 2018).

To many, Stein's phraseology merely concedes there's nothing beyond superficial reality. Stein herself thought the sentence had deeper meaning. She believed words once represented something. Over time, this representation had grown stale.

She wanted to return to the time when words actually meant what they represented. Of her own poem, she said, "I think that in that line the rose is red for the first time in English poetry for a hundred years."

In much the same way, the true meaning of the words associated with the rendering of investment advice has become diluted through overuse and inappropriate use.

Many have said this confuses investors. I'm sure you have seen this yourself. From "adviser" to "advisor" to "counselor" to "consultant," we've witnessed a growing inconsistency in their application.

While originally consigned to fiduciaries under the obligation of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, they are now universally used by all sorts of players within the industry – from true fiduciaries to commission-based sales representatives.

What is in these titles? Aye, there's the rub.

Which brings us to Shakespeare. In Act II, Scene II of Romeo and Juliet, (the one that begins "O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?") Juliet tells Romeo, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose/By any other word would smell as sweet."

In other words, Juliet is suggesting Romeo change his name so they can get married. Still, she insists, no matter what they call Romeo, Juliet is admitting he'll always be the same Romeo to her.

Only it doesn't work that way in the real world.

Euphemisms do dupe people, as the widespread confusion of the difference – or similarity, depending on your point of view – between "adviser" and "advisor" attests.

The meaning of any person, place, or thing rests in what it is and what it does, not in what we call it. Stein concentrated on the words. Shakespeare went beyond the language and set his sights on the very being in question.

Renaming something won't change its fundamental reality. We can call a cat "dog" but it will still be a cat. Likewise, we can call a broker "advisor," but that broker will still be a broker with a duty to the firm, not the client.

Can the person employed as a broker also offer advice? Sure, but then that person ceases being a broker and becomes someone with a duty to the client, not the firm.

At least, in the best of all possible worlds, that's the way it should be.

Instead, we live in a world of quantum brokers, where a fuzzy broker-adviser duality exists much in the same way we see a wave-particle duality in quantum physics.

Some think that's OK, but don't include clients among them. Some think this is a new and acceptable reality, but don't include Gertrude Stein (or Shakespeare) among them.

In fact, if you tried to make this argument to dear old Gertrude, she'd scoff it off with her most famous quote:

"There's no there, there."   

Related Articles:

There's a difference between 'adviser' and 'advisor' (BenefitsPro, December 1, 2014)

Do brokers matter anymore? – Carosa (BenefitsPro, October 18, 2017)