When leading change, using inflammatory rhetoric isn't helpful. The financial services industry, at this critical crossroads, needs strong, unified leadership to help foster meaningful change, not fractured self-interest.

Numerous organizations have presented views suggesting how regulatory reform should look. In many cases these groups have used denigrating language to characterize certain types of business models or products as inherently inappropriate. Challenging one another for the moral high ground is creating a turf war that benefits no one.

LET CLIENTS DECIDE

Ultimately the market (our clients) decides whether the services offered have value. Is a fee-only relationship better than a fee and commission or commission-only relationship? Clients should answer this and 50 other questions.

However, we haven't provided our clients with the information they need to make fully informed decisions about which business model or type of advisor best fits their needs. Until we do, we're just protecting our turf, not theirs. Or, we're asking for sweeping reforms that will make those decisions for all of us and lead to unintended consequences.

Our well-intentioned public servants can't possibly know which voices to listen to given the contradictory messages presented by our industry. It's time to put differences behind us, determine what we can agree on for the benefit of our clients and present a united industry position on financial reform.

UNITED FRONT

All of us should agree that clients are better off receiving financial advice from a knowledgeable professional than going it alone. Here are some others points that all should embrace:

* Not all investors want the same services; hence, no one type of advisor or model is right for all clients.

* The business model chosen has little impact on how well clients are served when advisors put client interests first.

* Advisors who offer good service, fair value and have a genuine interest in helping clients will excel.

In every model there will always be practitioners who do not meet standards, including some who operate as fiduciaries. For the rest, it's time to work together to lead change.

MORE TRANSPARENCY

Clients vary greatly in their ability to understand financial services offerings. The reality is:

* They do not speak the same language as advisors.

* They don't fully understand how their financial services professionals are paid or for whom they work.

* They don't care if you operate under a fiduciary or suitability standard as long as their needs are met.

There is a difference between disclosure and transparency. A properly educated client can make an informed decision about what type of financial services professional to work with and what types of products and services to use.

What the industry-and any reform created for it-needs is more transparency. One goal of financial regulatory reform should be better-informed investors who understand who they are working with, what they are getting, how they are paying for what they are getting and the conflict of interest potential.

Ultimately we are all stewards for our clients; we should always serve them first. That said, we do good work, and it is appropriate to benefit from our efforts. The media demonization of Wall Street has been focused on institutions, not individual professionals. The actions of a few large players have put the entire industry in a negative light. To restore trust, the best thing we can do is to move toward greater transparency.

As we contemplate changes-including the movement, at an appropriate pace, toward a common fiduciary standard-let's remember that together we all can improve the financial outcome for clients. By finding common ground on what is best for investors, we-as an industry-can lead positive change.

Matt Lynch is president and CEO of Capital Analysts. He can be reached at matt.lynch@capitalanalysts.com.