at that time a man called jack grubman at citicorp told the world that, quote, what others called a conflict he called dissynergy. that same attitude was prevalent last week when there was another symptomatic moment. at a critical point in last week's goldman's hearing, senator susan collins asked a panel of goldman executives, quote, did they have a my -- fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their clients? they were sort of stumped, gave halting answers, but one did say he did believe we have a duty to serve our clients. now, whatever he meant by that, the correct answer is simple and unambiguous. except in a very few states like california, brokered dealers owe no fiduciary duty, no general fiduciary duty to their clients. that defines the problem, and that makes possible the continuation of serious conflicts of interest. what brokers today owe is a much lesser dilute standard set forth in something called the suitability rule. the suitability rule is passed not by congress, not by the sec, but by with self-regulatory bodies that began with the stock exchange and the nasd and it'