Skip to main content

My heroes have always been fiduciaries (and they still are it seems)

The passing of John Bogle recently breezed through the public’s scant attention span. Sad. Bogle was a national hero. He was a fiduciary.

A fiduciary is someone who takes some control of resources on behalf of another person. In modern legal terms, the emphasis is that the fiduciary makes decisions that are best for the owner, rather than best for the fiduciary’s personal interests.

Legislation is occasionally considered that would require financial advisors to “act as fiduciaries” for their clients. In practice, that means they should always act for the benefit of their clients, not their own interest. For example, when choosing between a low-cost mutual fund and a higher-cost fund that offers to send the advisor on a nice vacation, they should choose the lower cost fund. It’s a tough standard.

It’s such a tough standard it can be hard to think of real-life examples in any field. Even financial advisors need to look out for themselves. They’ve got families to feed, right? Would we really expect them to give the advice “You don’t really need a financial advisor”?

There are roles we think of as fiduciary: lawyers who defend clients should use their power in the best interest of their client. If they put outside interests over their client, it would be considered an ethical violation. In America, such fiduciary representation typically carries a very high price tag.

Physicians should act as fiduciaries where their patients’ health is concerned. They often do. They also have been found providing questionable amounts of medication, or questionable numbers of screenings, when they stand to profit from those prescriptions or screenings.

Politicians should act as fiduciaries for their all their constituents... but politics and power frequently come first.

The fiduciary standard is tough even with the best examples in mind.

In many ways I feel America has given up on the idea of fiduciaries. Greed is good, so caveat emptor. If someone takes advantage of you, you probably got what you deserved. If your financial advisor takes you for a ride, then you must not have done your due diligence. If your physician over-medicated you, you neglected to advocate for yourself. In the marketplace, there’s no such thing as an innocent victim.

John Bogle was an icon because he came close to the fiduciary standard and had broad impact in the world of personal investing. Bogle, if you don’t know, invented the index fund. He noticed that most investors would be better off paying low fees and making average returns than paying high fees and making average returns. (Another luminary, Burton Malkiel, did the math that showed you’re not going to do better than average over the long term even if you pay a smart person lots of money.)

Bogle’s company, Vanguard, continues to drive down the costs of investing for consumers. I’m so happy I found Vanguard.

Other financiers and companies got much richer than Bogle. They sold the appealing idea that you can beat the market.

Bogle was a fiduciary. Others were salespeople. Salespeople can be effective. But fiduciaries are good.

When I was younger, I read a book about W. Edwards Deming. He struck me as fiduciary-minded, emphasizing the value that should be delivered to customers. The quote that sticks in my mind goes something like: “The only ethical reason for a business to exist is to increase the long-term standard of living of its customers.”

That’s another tough standard. But God bless him for putting it out there. Sometimes I feel so alone thinking that capitalism should be grounded in morality.

“Let the buyer beware.” What a predatory world to live in. I thank John Bogle for building a good company that aligns its interests with customers. Even customers need a friend once in a while.

Like the song says:

     My heroes have always been fiduciaries
     And they still are, it seems
     Sadly in search of, but one step in back of
     Themselves and their slow movin' dreams

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

New Yorker letter to editor

(In The New Yorker, 2/4/08, p5) Jeanne Guillemin, a senior fellor in MIT's Security Studies Program, wrote an excellent letter to the editor regarding how Americans talk about casualties. I'm unable to find a link to a full-text example, but here is an excerpt: "In wars since 1945, American combat mortality figures have sharply declined, while the exclusivity of the American claim on memorialization has intensified, as if U.S. soldiers were the only casualties in Korea or Vietnam or, more recently, Iraq, and the deaths of many thousands of civilians killed in those distant conflicts merited no acknowledgment and carried no meaning. Whose deaths matter and whose do not always tells a great deal about American politics and culture."

Real Estate in America

We sold our house this summer and bought a new home. The experience has led me to reflect on homes and home-buying in America. As in any industry, there are good and bad incentives at work in real estate. A home seller would like to get the highest price for their house and sell it in a reasonable period of time. The industry operates on a commission system so that the agent seeks to sell the house at a higher price. This incentive works, but only to a point. Consider the impact of $5000 on the seller vs. the agent. Six percent of $5000 is $300. After the realty company and purchasing agent take their cut, the agent isn't left with much. A $5000 difference in the price of the house means little to the agent, but a lot to the home owner. Does an agent become successful by getting the highest price or by turning over lots of houses? The answer is obvious. An agent's ideal world is not one where people get exactly the right price for their homes, it is a world where everyone is wi

Welfare for the wealthy

I was struck by today's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Not literally, but in the Crossroads section, on opposite sides of the spread, were two articles that reflect our nation's "welfare for the rich." On 2J, a local economics instructor's article "Tax for Miller Park didn't help economy." He criticized a previous article which had suggested the opposite. The previous article was based almost entirely on reports by Major League Baseball, which clearly has a huge bias. This week's article takes an objective look, and summarizes that taxpayer's don't get much in return, but the fat cat players and executives of MLB walk away with huge paychecks. The drive to fund new ballparks almost never starts with taxpayers--it starts with the deep pockets of baseball executives, PR campaigns and connections with political power. On 3J, George Will was taking on the Fed ("What the Fed should never do"), rightly criticizing it for bailing out Bear