Unlike many corporations that have a mandatory retirement date for senior leaders, the majority of financial advisors are under no such constraints. The advantage is that the industry avoids the problem in which some executives, who still have several productive years left, are forced out prematurely.
Financial-product consumers often believe they can’t be discriminated against based on their genetic information. This is not the case: Insurers can and do take the information into account.
Successful advisors often develop meaningful relationships with their clients. This deep attachment makes professional practice so worthwhile. One technique that psychologists recommend in dealing with interpersonal conflict is to “interpret up.”
The #MeToo movement is an important social moment in which women (and those who support them) have had the opportunity to tell their stories. Part of what is happening as a result of this movement is a re-imagining of the boundaries of what constitutes sexual harassment and physical assault.
Massachusetts set off alarms across the brokerage industry earlier this month when it charged Scottrade with violating the DOL fiduciary rule. At the heart of the complaint: allegations concerning the firm’s use of sales contests.
Age discrimination can be hard to prove on the job, but during the hiring process, it’s even more difficult. Employers can so easily say they decided to go another way, or simply not reach out after receiving an application or resume, and there’s little evidence to show that it was because of a person’s age or high school graduation year.
Even highly competent advisors make mistakes. And these mistakes raise the interesting question of both when and how to apologize. Some argue that it’s never a good idea for an advisor to apologize, particularly when the mistake in question touches on areas of competence or diligence.
