Of course I'm completely mistaken. What else would or could I be in a venue where the only allowed and correct POV is that of the beholder. So we agree on that. I don't think anyone cares if someone IS ethical, all they want is for them to ACT ethical when it comes to giving financial advice. You don't think that can be done? If not, then why would I trust you or DHK or anyone to give me advice on investments? If you are telling me "Invest your money in this, and that, and the other thing, and this is definitely good for me because I make a lot of money on the sale, but you probably will lose it all," what is my incentive to take your advice? Why is it so unrealistic for me to expect you to be honest. And if you are intrinsically not honest, why is it unrealistic for me to expect that you will be made to be honest by fear of punishment? I know what my fears are. I don't quite understand what your's are. OK. Then sit down and WRITE standard that you would agree to abide with and post it here. How hard can that be? I'm sure you can do this in ten minutes or so. You know the issues better than you seem to think I do. I keep hearing this 'scare tactic' all the time, but I've yet to see any metrics to support it. If a guy walks into your office with only $15,000 to invest you would turn him away because there is too much risk? If so, then come up with a standard that would mitigate that risk to an acceptable level. I have to tell you this. From the sound and fury that so many advisors are making against any fiduciary standard makes me and I assume others believe that the whole lot of them are intrinsically dishonest. They at least deliver a modicum of 'peace of mind' since they DO work under the fiduciary standard. I get a smile over the fact that you are all fine and dandy with lawyers and CPAs working under a fiduciary standard, but OMG, the horror, the horror if you should have to do so as well!