We use specialists for many tasks ineveryday life. Perhaps, rather than squeeze financial pros under auniform umbrella, it might be better to admit to the reality of arainbow of umbrellas, each designed for a specific circumstance.(Photo: Shutterstock)

Airing on March 2, 1962, the 24th episode of Twilight Zone'sthird season was entitled “To Serve Man.” You might remember thisnow-famous show for featuring Richard Kiel – who would later playJaws in James Bond movies – as the mysterious alien Kanamit whocomes to Earth with technology that rids the world of all thingsbad.

The plot centers on an alien book whose title “To Serve Man” isinterpreted benevolently (i.e., to help humans).

In the end, and too late, it's discovered to be a cookbook.

“Clear lines, clear labels,” is what broadcast veteran PamKrueger told me when I asked her about the SEC's “Best Interest”proposal (see “Exclusive Interview: MoneyTrack's Pam Krueger SaysIt's Time for Industry and Regulators to 'Pick a Lane',”FiduciaryNews.com, August 21, 2018).

Related: The 'Fiduciary Rule' versus 'The Rule ofFiduciary'

The trouble with most regulations is that they're written bylawyers for lawyers. Spoiler alert: Most people aren't lawyers.While regulators seem intent on accommodating all fifty shades ofgrey, retirement savers just want to know “Is this right forme?”

Therein lies the problem. “Is this right for me?” implies ablack-and-white answer. Such clarity does not exist. We each haveour own wants and needs. We each have our own goals and dreams. Nocookie-cutter solution can accommodate the variety of answersinherent in the diversity of individual situations.

Imagine having a medical problem. At first, you seek the adviceof a general practitioner. Once the ailment is isolated, you'reoften referred to a specialist.

And we don't limit this model to the health profession. We usespecialists to work on various parts of our car. We hire specialtycontractors (electricians, plumbers, etc..) to fix the littlethings that can go wrong in our house. Heck, we have so manyspecialty food restaurants that going out to dinner can present aburdensome choice.

So why not divvy up the world of finance into specialists? Perhaps, rather thansqueeze everyone under a single universal umbrella, it might bebetter to admit to the reality of a rainbow of umbrellas, eachdesigned for a specific circumstance.

Yes, we may still have room for general practitioners, but onlywithin the larger constellation of specialists. We can have“financial planners” to address broad issues, “bankers andcustodians” to handle safekeeping, “brokers” to handletransactions, and “Registered Investment Advisers” to manageportfolios.

Above all, this needs to be offered within the context of “clearlines and clear labels.” We all know the dangers of one-stopshopping. The lure of convenience masks the bane of higher pricesand limited choices. This model, while we can't prohibit it, mustbe the exception, rather than the rule.

If the SEC is serious about helping investors, it ought to beconsidering ways to eliminate bundled services and require serviceproviders to, as Pam Krueger puts it, “pick a lane.”

Otherwise, the great unwashed masses will find themselves notbeing served by their financial professionals, but beingserved to their financial professionals.