If financial advisors want a bigger commission for selling in-house products that are less beneficial to the client, then they should not be called financial advisors. They should be called "mutual fund saleperson"

I believe in the motivation for advisors to recommend one product over another for compensation is self serving. This creates an inherit conflict of interst and must be fully disclosed in the context of the transaction. Tighter regulation, excessive compensation,a fiduary standard model, putting the public interst first always are ideas who's time has come. This should be the focus of the SEC and FINRA.

Eliminating broker compensation will not be the answer because the public majority can't afford to pay for advice and if comissions are eliminated these people will not get the advice they need.

Soon the nanny gov will be telling you how much you can earn and what jobs you can or can't have

Robert Soros, quoted in Jeffery Goldberg's Article in the May 2009 Atlantic, said it best: "You think a brokerage firm is a place you go to pay commissions for fair and unbiased advice. It's not. You are a consumer of their dreck. They were never your advisors." Seth Larman quoted in the same article posited: "The average person can't trust their broker, because their broker is interested in churning commissions. They can't trust a mutual fund, because the mutual fund is interested in gathering a lot of assets and keeping them."

The average person needs an advisor who represents their interest, whose incentive is tied to the consumer's goals, not the firm's goals or the fund's goals. I think the first step the consumer can take is to seek out an independent advisor whose recommendations aren't skewed by the interests of brokerage that employs them.

That's what proxies are for. Let the shareholders run their own companies

Mr Lynch, why did they run to the nanny government when they needed a $700 billion bailout? Why did the previous president tell the American people it was essential to give it to them or our economy would collapse? Where were his Republican kahunas when he should have let them fail? Why is it when the average tax payer who paid for the bailout needs benefits from their own government that is in existence by & for the people, that then it is labeled a nanny government? Why do you support rampant greed which brought this country down economically? Same thing happened in 1929. I'm sure you want to blame the illegals, it goes with your mindset.

So much for a free Country. I will never understand how people can put so much faith in the government to solve problems. Someone tell me one thing the government does well besides provide for our national security?

Should the government be setting salaries and wages ? Is there anything they don't want to control ?

The SEC should indeed set a maximum limit on pay. Nobody should earn more than the President of the United States makes.

They should reinact the past regulatory laws that were taken out by Regan. Without this there are no protections - the entire market is open to pilfer the public purse.

If we can't trust our commission based sales people who work for "too big to fail" financial firms, who can we trust?

Communism, No other way to describe this.

The recession is ending. The next Great Depression will begin in two months when the market crashes. Everything Obama has done will only make it worse