WSJ: Your Financial Adviser Doesn’t Want You to Know About These Conflicts

DHK

RFC®, ChFC®, CLU®
5000 Post Club
Great article in the WSJ, featuring Dr. Michael Finke from The American College.

Here's a few great paragraphs:

Still, the fee-based structure can tempt advisers to make recommendations that maximize a portfolio balance, even when doing so isn’t in a client’s best interest, according to academics and researchers.
[...]
“Fee-based compensation is generally considered less prone to abuse than commissions, but we’re seeing some behaviors among fee-only advisers that also represent clear conflicts of interest,” said Michael Finke, a professor at the American College of Financial Services.
[...]
But advisers stand to earn more fees when their clients claim Social Security soon after retiring, because clients don’t take as much from their portfolios.
[...]
If the client withdraws $500,000 from the portfolio to eliminate the mortgage, the account balance and adviser’s pay halve.
[...]
“Whether an adviser chooses to recommend the right thing for the client or not, it would be naive to think their own pay doesn’t enter their mind,” Moore added.
[...]
Advisers don’t generally share in economists’ enthusiasm, said Finke, perhaps because buying an annuity generally means moving money out of an investment account.

 
Imo. Flat fee is the future of financial planning.

A flat fee could be taken out of the AUM.

A flat fee could build in bonuses for good performance (or hitting whatever benchmark is desired by the client).

A % of assets creates many different conflicts of interest.
 
Imo. Flat fee is the future of financial planning.

A flat fee could be taken out of the AUM.

A flat fee could build in bonuses for good performance (or hitting whatever benchmark is desired by the client).

A % of assets creates many different conflicts of interest.
As does not being licensed to offer the majority of the necessary financial planning products.

Only tool being a hammer and all...
 
Back
Top