Please thoroughly read this article and briefly answer the question.

Let's Gey the Ethics Clear Here: Adviser or Sales Agent? Source: The Globe and Mail (Canada), April 1, 2010 CAN you believe this? There's actually a debate going on about whether financial advisers should be explicitly required to put the interest of clients first. Gee, tough one. Should we have a financial advice industry that's based on selling products and where the guiding principle for clients is caveat emptor? Or should we make financial advisers a true profession with a fiduciary standard? Fiduciary means trust: "a person who occupies a position of such power and confidence with regard to the property of another that the law requires him to act solely in the interest of the person whom he represents." l have met hundreds of diligent advisers who already meet a fiduciary standard. They build personalized financial plans for their clients and they choose the best investment products to realize these goals, regardless of how much they pay the seller in fees and commissions. The problem with the advice business is that this is not a universal standard. Too many advisers are mutual fund salespeople who work similarly to sellers of cars and furniture. You know the story - you walk in to make a purchase and you end up in negotiations with someone whose goal it is to make money off you. It's understood and it's fine because everyone knows the rules. Things are different in the financial world. Here, we have "advisers" who may advise, or they may actually do nothing but sell stuff. A fiduciary standard would clarify things. People who want to call themselves advisers would be fiduciaries and those that don't would be mutual fund salespeople. Clients who wanted overall financial planning would see an adviser. Those who wanted to buy some investments would sit down with a salesperson and do all the requisite haggling about commissions. The idea of dividing the financial world into advisers and salespeople comes from Cary List, president and CEO of the Financial Planning Standards Council. Mr. List participated in a conference last week on fiduciary duty for advisers. His take on the views presented was that there's no agreement about what fiduciary duty truly means in a legal sense. As a result, he thinks the right approach is to require a fiduciary duty of advisers in all but name. Call it a duty of care, for example. Then describe the people who agree to assume that duty as advisers, and the rest as salespeople. "The average Joe can understand the difference between a salesperson and an adviser," Mr. List said. There are a number of arguments against requiring advisers to be fiduciaries, or something equivalent. But you can't help but feel that opposition to fiduciary-like rules is about keeping the status quo in the financial industry. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, there are signs the investment industry is striving to bring more of an advice component to its relationship with clients. If it's all about selling investing products, then a year like 2008 can be deadly for business. But with advice comes responsibility. Either the investment industry accepts it and adopts the fiduciary-like standards that define a serious profession, or it keeps a status quo where selling is the main objective. Question: This case goes to the core of CFA Standard Ill: Duties to Clients (A) Loyalty, Prudence and Care. Discuss some of the (relevant) important considerations that the CFA adopts when applying loyalty, prudence and care to nancial advisers. Are there arguments against requiring advisers to be duciaries