More Money

The personal finance blog of MONEY magazine

Should personal finance writers be liable for bad advice?

May 27, 2010: 2:56 PM ET

After I argued last week that Congress ought to force financial advisers to do a better job for their clients, a reader posted a related question: Would personal finance journalists have to meet these higher standards as well? He followed up with an email:

George, for this fiduciary responsibility that you are advocating — shouldn't it also apply to you and the other columnists who post advice on CNNMoney? For that matter, why not to Suze Orman and Jim Cramer? Shouldn't you be able to be sued if your advice doesn't work out for an investor that took it?

Fair questions. I can't say I have years of experience in the field of securities law and regulation, but here's my short answer: No.

A slightly longer answer (none of which should be understood as an official answer from MONEY's lawyers or owners): The fiduciary standard I discussed would, in the amendment introduced by Senators Akaka, Menendez and Durbin, be expanded to cover "a broker or dealer, when providing personalized investment advice about securities to a retail customer." Suze Orman, my colleagues at MONEY and CNNMoney.com and I aren't brokers or dealers, so we wouldn't be covered by that legislation.

Even though that knocks us out of a fiduciary obligation in this go-round, I think it's worth exploring whether we financial journalists do in fact offer "personalized investment advice." You could argue that we do, since at MONEY and CNNMoney.com we regularly answer questions from individuals seeking advice. But I would disagree, for two reasons.

First, our answers to specific questions — along with all the advice we give in articles that aren't responding to individual readers — aren't "personalized"; they're intended to be useful information for anyone who looks at them. Second, to the extent that we do answer a specific person's question in a column, I'd say there's a huge qualitative distinction between what we know about the writer and his or her situation (generally, a paragraph of background information) and what an investment professional knows (or should know) about the particular circumstances of the customers he or she is advising. As a general rule, financial journalists most of the time don't even meet the fiduciary standard's weaker cousin, the suitability standard, as part of which brokers are instructed, "Know Your Customer." I think people seeking advice from personal finance journalists have expectations of us that are far different than those they have of financial industry professionals. We journalists are strangers dispensing free advice; financial advisers, however, are meeting them face-to-face and doing business. While they might reasonably assume that we journalists will have intelligent, well-thought-out answers to their questions, I doubt they believe that our obligations to them are as strong as those of someone they're paying to ensure their financial security.

Another thought: The fiduciary duty, when it is applied, is usually understood as covering someone not simply who is in a trusted position, but also who can profit at a trusting person's expense by choosing one course of action over another. Whatever advice we financial journalists might give, we wouldn't make more money by recommending a lousy investment over a good one — a far different situation from that of a broker who might earn a larger commission by selling you a product that's worse for you than another that earns him less.

But though my colleagues and I might not be legally obligated to give you good advice, we have selfish motives for doing so. The dumber our recommendations, the more likely you are to figure out we're giving bad advice, and the more likely you are to lose interest in us. It's a matter of pride — and continued employment — for a journalist to write material that readers find useful and good; none of us wants to develop a reputation for stupidity.

Granted, a fiduciary obligation might establish minimum requirements of professional competency for personal finance journalists. But who needs such a formal standard when you have the Internet? As I have learned from personal experience, if people think I've given bad advice, word gets around pretty quickly.

Add the More Money blog to your favorite RSS reader.  Subscribe at http://rss.cnn.com/moneyfeatures.rss.

Join the Conversation
About This Author
George Mannes
George Mannes

George Mannes is a senior editor at MONEY who covers family finances and financial advisory services. He joined the magazine in 2005 after previous stints at TheStreet.com, where he covered investing and media companies, and the (New York) Daily News, where he wrote about business and technology.

Email George
Most Popular
35,000 Postal Service jobs on the chopping block
 
Procter and Gamble cutting 5,700 jobs
 
Multi-million dollar foreclosures
 
Fear of Iran is inflating gas prices
 
No iPhone leads 700,000 customers to flee T-Mobile
 
Market indexes are shown in real time, except for the DJIA, which is delayed by two minutes. All times are ET. Disclaimer LIBOR Warning: Neither BBA Enterprises Limited, nor the BBA LIBOR Contributor Banks, nor Reuters, can be held liable for any irregularity or inaccuracy of BBA LIBOR. Disclaimer. Morningstar: © 2012 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer The Dow Jones IndexesSM are proprietary to and distributed by Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and have been licensed for use. All content of the Dow Jones IndexesSM © 2012 is proprietary to Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Chicago Mercantile Association. The market data is the property of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved. FactSet Research Systems Inc. 2012. All rights reserved. Most stock quote data provided by BATS.
Powered by WordPress.com VIP.