Client or Counterparty?

The controversy about Goldman Sachs' sale of the Abacus CDO raises an interesting question: are counterparties of securities firms entitled to be protected beyond the requirements of the securities laws? In our opinion, the relationship between a trader (or any business) and a customer is by nature antagonistic: one wants the highest possible price while the other wants the lowest possible one. As noted by Adam Smith, the best safeguard is an open and competitive market. This allows the 'invisible hand' to produce an outcome where both parties to the contract pursue their own (egoistic) interests and the best outcome for both of them (and society) is produced at the same time.Unfortunately, too many customers of securities firms are lulled into complacency by PR, fancy 'research', 'seminars' and other freebies and forget to do their own homework. This applies not only to retail investors but paradoxically also to 'sophisticated' investors. Already the term 'client' is designed to make the customer's eyes glaze over and induce them to think that a friendly uncle is going to sell them the latest inventions of the quant wizards on the derivative desk. But the dictionary tells us that a client is 'One that depends on the protection of another'. In reality the term should really only be applied to clients of doctors or lawyers. Fee-based financial advisors in private banks and traditional money management firms can also claim to be on the investor's side.
To ask for full disclosure from a securities dealer would be like asking a Bond Street jeweler to disclose the production cost of the latest Rolex watch and 'advise' the customer on the merits of the purchase.