Monday Morning: Our role in a rapidly changing industry

Humpty Dumpty had a special relationship with language.

“When I use a word,” he scolded, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

Of course as journalists, we take a very different view. We believe words have preciseness. They mean what they mean, neither more nor less.

For example, we are quite adept at telling the difference between “yes” and “no.”

So it was when InvestmentNews reporter Brooke Southall called TD Waterhouse Group Inc. in New York for further elaboration on a recent conference speech by TD Waterhouse USA chief executive Frank J. Petrilli.

Mr. Petrilli seemed to suggest that there was a middle ground – between self-directed investing and discretionary advice – wherein companies like his own could offer non-discretionary advice.

So Mr. Southall had one question on his mind: Was Waterhouse getting into the advice business?

When he contacted the company for comment, Waterhouse provided – we didn’t choose – spokeswoman Melissa Gitter to respond.

Mr. Southall had two interviews with Ms. Gitter, and rest assured, at no time did she say “no.” To the contrary, everything she said indicated that Waterhouse was going forward with plans to offer advice. That it would compete with independent advisers is a no-brainer.

Needless to say, when the story appeared we were surprised by the company’s reaction; it professed to be shocked – shocked! – by its publication.

In a letter posted on Waterhouse’s website, Mr. Petrilli and J. Thomas Bradley Jr., president of Waterhouse Institutional Services, went so far as to call the story “false.” In a separate letter to this publication (see Page 12) the two executives called the story “not only wrong,” but also “irresponsible.”

We generally decline to respond to such characterizations. We believe that our stories speak for themselves and that our readers are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions.

This situation, however, does raise a question that merits a response: That is, what do we see as our role in covering this industry?

InvestmentNews is a trade publication, but it is very different from the magazines that have covered this niche. They publish monthly and focus on soft features and practice management issues; we publish weekly and focus on news and analysis.

Today, the financial services industry is highly competitive and rapidly changing. Our mission is to provide news and information that keeps advisers abreast of what is happening – as it happens, and sometimes before.

In that regard, we believe very strongly in editorial independence. We strive to work with companies, but we don’t necessarily work on their timetables. When we learn of significant new developments, our first priority is to inform our readers.

That may come as a surprise to executives used to cozy relationships with other publications. But our loyalty lies with our readers.

In a highly competitive industry, that is the best way to assure all parties that we will treat them equally. We also want them to know that they can take the information we publish to the bank. That is why we put a premium on news that is timely, accurate, fair and unfettered.

There is absolutely no incentive for us to do otherwise. But to assure accuracy and balance, we count on the subjects we cover to respond promptly and candidly to our questions.

Judging by the careful wording in his story, it’s clear that Mr. Southall accurately captured Ms. Gitter’s comments. She may have spoken out of school, but she was forthright in what she said, and the story reflects that.

After all, she could have simply offered the same denial that Mr. Petrilli and Mr. Bradley now offer after the fact. That she didn’t, suggests a breakdown in communication on their end, not ours.

This week a follow-up story appears on Page 1. As always, we believe it speaks for itself. We also have great faith that our readers will continue to draw their own conclusions.

As for us, we pledge to do everything we can to continue serving their best interests.