This article is part of the Biblically-Informed Framework for Retirement Stewardship (BIFRS). It was initially published in April 2016 and updated in January 2026.
In this article, I assume you either use a financial professional or a firm to help with your investments, or you are considering it. If you manage them yourself, which is a very good option if you are up to the task, then this article won’t be very relevant to you – your fiduciary standard with regard to your own money is probably greater than anyone else’s.
But if you use a financial professional (broker, adviser, insurance salesperson, etc.), you should be aware of the significant regulatory changes that have shaped the landscape over the past decade. The debate about whether all financial professionals should be held to a fiduciary standard—as opposed to the “suitability” standard—has been ongoing since before I first wrote this article in 2016. The regulatory pendulum has swung back and forth, with rules proposed, implemented, challenged in court, and ultimately stayed or withdrawn.
As I write this update in early 2026, having been retired for seven years now and working with my own financial adviser during that time, I can tell you from personal experience that the quality of the adviser-client relationship matters far more than the specific regulatory framework under which they operate. That said, understanding these standards is still important for choosing the right professional to work with.
What exactly is the “fiduciary standard”?
The fiduciary standard simply means that advisers have to put their clients’ best interests ahead of their own. For instance, faced with two identical products but with different fees, an adviser under the fiduciary standard would be compelled to recommend the one with the lower cost to the client, even if it meant fewer dollars in the finance company’s coffers and his or her own pocket in the form of a sales commission.
This standard is good for you and me, but not necessarily as good for the adviser.
So, if a financial planner or adviser is held to the fiduciary standard, it simply means that:
- They must exercise their best efforts to act in the client’s best interests.
- They must disclose any conflicts of interest.
- They must clearly explain how they make their money (upfront fees, asset-based fees, commissions, etc.)
Some of this is very subjective (“best efforts” and “best interests” can mean different things to different people). But if you’re like me, you’re probably wondering, “Hey, wait a minute, don’t these folks have to do this already?” Well, the surprising answer is…no, not all of them. The fact is that some types of advisers are held to this standard, whereas others are held to a different standard.
This may be over-simplifying things, but generally speaking:
- Registered Investment Advisers (RIAs) and their representatives do owe a fiduciary duty to clients under federal securities law.
- Broker-dealers (stockbrokers) are held to the SEC’s Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI), implemented in 2020, which requires them to act in the retail customer’s best interest when making recommendations, but is not technically the same as full fiduciary status.
- Insurance agents are held to state-level “best interest” standards when selling annuities; all 50 states have adopted some form of annuity best-interest standard as of 2025.
The landscape has changed significantly since I first wrote this article in 2016. While insurance agents and stockbrokers still don’t operate under the full ERISA fiduciary standard that RIAs do, the gap has narrowed considerably with the implementation of Regulation Best Interest and state-level insurance standards.
The “suitability standard” and “regulation best interest”
The traditional “suitability” standard gave agents and brokers more wiggle room, as it simply required that investments fit a client’s objectives, time horizon, and investing experience. Unfortunately, this standard could be met by recommending a less suitable option, as long as it passed the general suitability test.
In June 2020, the SEC implemented Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI), which raised the bar for broker-dealers. Reg BI requires brokers to:
- Act in the retail customer’s best interest when making recommendations
- Disclose conflicts of interest
- Exercise reasonable diligence and care to understand the risks and rewards of recommendations
- Have a reasonable basis to believe the recommendation is in the customer’s best interest
While Reg BI stopped short of imposing full fiduciary status on brokers, it significantly tightened standards beyond the old suitability rule. In my years working with financial professionals, I’ve found that reputable advisers were already operating at this level or higher—Reg BI simply formalized what good advisers were already doing.
The DOL’s fiduciary rule saga: A decade of back and forth
Since 2016, the Department of Labor has made multiple attempts to expand fiduciary obligations for retirement investment advice under ERISA. Here’s a brief timeline:
2016: The DOL issued a fiduciary rule that would have expanded who qualifies as a fiduciary when providing retirement advice. The financial services industry challenged it in court.
2018: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the 2016 rule, finding the DOL had overstepped its authority.
2020: Rather than appeal, the DOL under the Trump administration decided not to pursue new fiduciary regulations. Meanwhile, the SEC implemented Regulation Best Interest.
April 2024: The DOL, under the Biden administration, issued a new “Retirement Security Rule” that again sought to broaden the fiduciary definition, particularly for one-time rollover recommendations from employer plans to IRAs.
July 2024: Two federal courts in Texas issued stays blocking implementation of the 2024 rule, finding the DOL likely exceeded its authority.
November 2025: The Trump administration’s Department of Justice withdrew its appeal of the Texas court stays, effectively ending enforcement of the 2024 fiduciary rule.
As of January 2026, the DOL’s expanded fiduciary rule remains stayed indefinitely. The original 1975 “five-part test” for determining fiduciary status under ERISA continues to apply. This test requires all five conditions to be met: advice must be (1) about securities or investments, (2) on a regular basis, (3) pursuant to a mutual agreement, (4) serving as a primary basis for decisions, and (5) individualized to the plan’s needs.
What this means practically: advisers who maintain ongoing relationships with retirement investors still owe fiduciary duties. But one-time advice—such as a single rollover recommendation—may not trigger fiduciary status under ERISA, though it would still be subject to SEC Regulation Best Interest if the adviser is a broker-dealer.
So why all the fuss?
I want to remind you of a simple truth: Financial services companies exist for one main reason: to make money. Is that wrong? Of course it isn’t. If those companies and the professionals they employ couldn’t make any money, well, they probably wouldn’t exist. Then we would all be on our own, which wouldn’t be a good situation either.
In one sense, most financial professionals are basically salespeople—they want to sell you a product or a service. Typically, the product is a mutual fund, an insurance policy, or an annuity. Or it could be a financial plan or the management and investment of your assets for a fee, typically a percentage of the amount under management. It could even be an hourly fee for advice only.
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that this is somehow wrong or unethical. Just because they sell you something doesn’t mean they don’t give good advice. Nor does it mean that they are all out to take advantage of you. It simply makes sense that in order to make a living, they have to sell you an investment product that pays them a commission, or sell you a service for which they can charge a fee, or perhaps both.
The debate about fiduciary standards has always centered on two competing concerns:
- Consumer protection: Ensuring that advisers put clients’ interests first and don’t profit from recommending higher-cost, lower-quality products.
- Access to advice: Preventing regulations from becoming so burdensome that advisers stop serving smaller accounts or middle-class investors who can’t afford fee-only planning.
The basic argument from industry opponents has been that expanded fiduciary rules would “limit middle-class access to financial advice”—meaning it could price the average investor out of the market for professional advice. Proponents counter that investors deserve the same level of care regardless of account size.
After watching this debate unfold for a decade, I believe both sides have valid concerns. The solution isn’t necessarily more regulation, but rather helping investors understand how to choose advisers who will treat them fairly, regardless of the regulatory framework.
Seeking out wise counsel and advice is part of good retirement stewardship
I personally enjoy managing my own investments, and I like to encourage and help others to do the same. But I also believe having a good financial adviser is the best course of action for most people. A “good” financial adviser brings a unique mix of skills to the table: hard technical knowledge, soft empathetic and communication skills, and the proper alignment of interests.
As a retiree who has worked with my own adviser, I can attest that the relationship works best when there’s mutual trust, clear communication, and shared understanding of goals. My adviser has helped me navigate market volatility, adjust my allocation as I’ve aged, and make wise decisions about Social Security and Medicare—all while respecting my faith-based stewardship principles.
The Bible contains many verses about the benefit of Godly counsel. The late Larry Burkett had a very good perspective on the general principle of seeking wise counsel and advice:
Balance is what God teaches us—the balance between [scripture] verses that say it is a wise person who seeks the counsel of many others and verses that warn if we listen to too many people we will go astray. Somewhere in between is the balance. God wants us to be open, listen to people with the same value systems, but not follow their direction for our lives too closely; rather, use it cautiously—as counsel in finding God’s direction. (The late Dr. Larry Burkett, from the book: The Word on Finances)
Government regulations and standards are appropriate to a point, but each of us has a responsibility to do our homework when choosing a financial adviser. Personal recommendations are great, especially since you are looking for someone you can trust.
There are several different ways that advisers are paid, so it’s vitally important that you understand how they make their money before you do business with them. Generally speaking, my advice is to be careful of commission-based arrangements and understand the conflicts they create, but that doesn’t mean you should avoid them altogether—many excellent advisers work on commission and serve their clients well.
If your adviser is selling 85-year-old widows living off Social Security a portfolio of small-cap growth stocks, run away—fast! If you’re a 55-year-old and your broker tells you to put all your money into an annuity, do the same.
To be clear, not every broker is trying to do that kind of thing, but certainly, there are some out there who should be avoided. Perhaps the various regulatory improvements over the past decade have helped with the bad apples, though the really bad ones will always find a way.
I believe that financial professionals deserve to be paid for their services. I also believe they should provide those services in a way consistent with their profession’s ethics and standards, and I think that includes an appropriate sense of fiduciary responsibility, even if they are not bound by the strictest “fiduciary standard.” My concern is that some financial professionals put their financial interests ahead of their clients, which is in direct conflict with good stewardship principles.
Choosing an adviser
When you look for a financial planner/adviser, you may be told to look for someone with this or that professional designation. But those letters after their name don’t all have the same value. Certain designations include higher standards of care, which I believe is a good thing.
Here’s what you should look for:
Fiduciary status: Start with advisers who owe a fiduciary duty—specifically, Registered Investment Advisers (RIAs) and their representatives. RIAs are required by law to act in your best interest and must disclose conflicts of interest.
Professional certifications: Look for advisers with respected credentials:
- Certified Financial Planner (CFP) – The most well-known and comprehensive certification, requiring education, examination, experience, and adherence to ethical standards
- Chartered Financial Consultant (ChFC) – Similar to CFP with different educational requirements
- Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) – Highly rigorous, focused on investment management
- Personal Financial Specialist (PFS) – For CPAs who also provide financial planning
Fee structure: Understand how your adviser is compensated:
- Fee-only: Advisers charge only fees (hourly, flat, or percentage of assets) with no commissions—generally the cleanest arrangement
- Fee-based: Advisers may charge fees and also receive commissions—requires careful disclosure of conflicts
- Commission-based: Advisers earn money only from product sales—highest potential for conflicts, though many serve clients well
Keep in mind that RIA is not an individual designation like CFP—it means the adviser or the firm they work for has registered with the state or the SEC to provide investment advice for a fee. Individual RIA representatives typically hold a Series 65 license or have credentials like CFP that waive this requirement.
The other main category is broker-dealers (Registered Representatives), who are licensed to sell securities and typically work on a commission basis. They must pass Series 7 and other exams and are registered with FINRA. Since 2020, they’ve been subject to Regulation Best Interest, which requires them to act in your best interest when making recommendations—a significant improvement over the old suitability standard.
My recommendation: Look for a CFP who works as a fiduciary (typically fee-only or fee-based through an RIA). If you work with a commission-based adviser, make sure they clearly disclose how they’re paid and are willing to explain why their recommendations are in your best interest.
The bottom line
After a decade of regulatory back-and-forth, here’s what I’ve learned: The regulatory framework matters less than the character and competence of the individual adviser.
Regardless of how the politics of fiduciary standards play out in Washington, my recommendation is always to choose a financial advisor who is willing to work with you with the heart of a teacher and commitment to your best interests, whether they’re technically required to or not. You want to work with someone who:
- Make sure you know what you are buying and why you are buying it
- Is fairly compensated without excessive fees or commissions
- Will not put their interests ahead of yours
- Shares your values and understands your goals
- Communicates clearly and patiently
- Has the credentials and experience to serve you well
That just makes good sense and good retirement stewardship.
Having worked with my own adviser through seven years of retirement, including the COVID-19 market crash and the challenging inflation environment of 2022-2023, I can tell you that having a trusted professional who understands your situation and keeps you disciplined during volatility is invaluable. The regulatory label matters less than the relationship.
A brief history: 2016-2026
For those interested in the regulatory journey since I first wrote this article:
April 2016: The DOL issued its first major fiduciary rule, expanding who qualifies as a fiduciary when providing retirement advice. The financial services industry opposed it, arguing it would limit access to advice for smaller investors.
2016-2018: The rule faced legal challenges from industry groups who argued the DOL exceeded its authority under ERISA.
March 2018: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the DOL’s 2016 fiduciary rule, finding the agency overstepped its statutory authority.
June 2020: The SEC implemented Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI), requiring broker-dealers to act in retail customers’ best interests—a middle ground between suitability and full fiduciary status.
2020-2025: All 50 states adopted annuity best interest standards for insurance agents, creating a patchwork of state-level consumer protections.
April 2024: The DOL issued a new “Retirement Security Rule” that, once again, attempts to broaden fiduciary obligations, particularly for rollover advice.
July 2024: Federal courts in Texas stayed the 2024 rule before it could take effect, finding the DOL likely exceeded its authority—echoing the 2018 Fifth Circuit decision.
November 2025: The Trump administration’s DOJ withdrew its appeal, effectively ending the 2024 fiduciary rule. The original 1975 five-part test remains in effect for ERISA fiduciary determinations.
Current status (January 2026): RIAs owe fiduciary duties under securities law. Broker-dealers must comply with SEC Regulation Best Interest. Insurance agents follow state-level best interest standards. The DOL’s attempts to expand ERISA fiduciary coverage have been blocked by courts.
Despite all this regulatory activity, I believe most advisers—from both the RIA and broker-dealer sides of the industry—continue to do what they’ve always done: serve their clients to the best of their ability. For the vast majority of financial professionals, acting in their clients’ best interest is not something they need to be forced to do. After all, it is the reason most of them became advisers in the first place.
Find one of those folks to work with you, make sure you understand how they’re paid and any potential conflicts, and you should be just fine. That’s good retirement stewardship.
Bottom Line: Whether your adviser is technically a “fiduciary” matters less than whether they act like one. Look for professionals with strong credentials (especially CFP), clear fee disclosure, and a track record of putting clients first. The relationship and trust matter more than the regulatory label.