Brokers May Have to Change

“A report by Rand Corp. last year found that 63% of investors think brokers are legally required to act in the best interest of the client; 70% believe that brokers must disclose any conflicts of interest.  Advisers always have those duties, but brokers often don’t.  The confusion is understandable, because a lot of stock brokers these days call themselves financial planners.” – Jason Zweig.

If you are confused by the difference among these titles: Financial Planner, Stockbroker, and Registered Investment Advisor, you are not alone.  The “Name Game” in the financial services industry is downright confusing.  How does your financial advisor operate?  How does she get paid?  What are the advantages and disadvantages of each arrangement?

Many people believe that they are getting financial planning from a stockbroker, when in fact financial planning is usually only an incidental part of what a stockbroker does.  Similarly, many people are not aware that a stockbroker does not have to act in the client’s best interests.

A June 19th Wall Street Journal article Big Change in Store for Brokers in Obama’s Oversight Overhaul brings home this point.

According to the article, stockbrokers might have to change the way they do business; they might have to act in their client’s best interests, the way a Registered Investment Advisor already does.

Wow!  What a concept.

Here are the relevant quotes:

Buried in President Obama’s proposed regulatory overhaul is a change that could upend Wall Street: Brokers would be held to a higher “fiduciary” standard that would compel them to place their client’s interests ahead of their own.

Currently, brokers are only required to offer investments that are “suitable,” which means they can’t put clients in inappropriate investments, such as a highly risky stock for an 80-year-old grandmother. The move could change the way products are sold and marketed and even how brokers are compensated.

Many investors don’t even know the difference between the two standards, believing their brokers already are acting in their best interests.

But requiring brokers to operate under a fiduciary standard could force them to offer products that are less costly and more tax-efficient.  They will have to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as any fees they may get for favoring one product over another. That could mean clients will be offered fewer proprietary products if the broker can find a lower-cost option elsewhere.

For example, a broker couldn’t put you in a mutual fund with higher fees — or one he gets a bigger commission for selling — if he could get a comparable fund with lower fees elsewhere, says Tamar Frankel, an expert on fiduciary law at Boston University School of Law. (Emphasis added.)

The article implies that some stockbrokers sometimes put their interests above yours.  Hmm.   This might just be worth investigating.

Luckily, I’ve discussed this topic many times, and in fact I have a series called The Dark Side of Wall Street, which lists all of the relevant posts.  If you start with Choosing a Financial Advisor, Part 1 at the bottom of the page, you can read them in order by following the “To be continued” link at the end of each post.

Avoid Investment Scams, Part 1

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” – Milton Friedman.

“Fed up with purported financial advisers preying on unwitting older people, investigators from the Arkansas Securities Department last year staged an undercover sweep of one of the hucksters’ favorite showcases — free lunch seminars.”

That was the lead in today’s Wall Street Journal article Laws Take On Financial Scams Against Seniors.  According to the article, which is about some questionable and possibly illegal practices, “financial scams that target seniors are on the rise, and states are cracking down.”

“Besides Arkansas and Michigan, Idaho also passed a senior-victim law in recent months that will go into effect this year. Six other states, including Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Rhode Island and West Virginia, have similar bills pending in their current legislative session.”

Leaving aside whether seniors are in particular need of protection, and whether the site of the crime is only a lunch seminar, let’s take a look at the misleading products offered.  Here are some relevant quotes, with emphasis added.

The Arkansas sweep … uncovered …shady practices — misleading claims, underplayed risk.

The recession has spurred more scams that play off people’s fear of stocks.  Some investments pitched as low-risk could instead be quite complex.

The events are generally pitched as educational events, with a free meal thrown in. But in Arkansas, state agents instead found that the dozens of seminars they attended all featured hard-sell pitches for financial products, many of which weren’t appropriate for elderly investors. Presenters at about half of the seminars made misleading claims about potential investment returns, Arkansas regulators say. And at about a quarter of the events, products being pushed were ill-suited to older people, such as investments heavily exposed to swings in stock prices.

The frequency of scams is increasing in the recession, many financial experts say. Seizing on fear of stock-market turmoil, sales people and fraudsters are hawking investments that claim to be “low-risk,” or a supposedly safe way to invest in the stock market and earn back losses. In fact, the products may be complex and have significant downsides.

Firms that have been cited for violations range from big financial giants to single-person offices.  In October 2007, a unit of Allianz SE, the German financial company, agreed in a settlement with Minnesota’s attorney general to review sales practices and to give refunds to as many as 7,000 Minnesota seniors that the state said may have been sold unsuitable annuities since 2001.  Allianz also agreed to strengthen its process to determine suitability for customers over the age of 65.

There is nothing illegal about financial advisers pitching products at seminars, but under securities and investor-protection laws, there are lines that these salespeople can’t cross.  Brokers must follow “suitability” standards, meaning they can’t sell a product that doesn’t make sense given a person’s age, income, or liquidity needs.  They can’t misrepresent products. S ales materials and oral presentations must show a balanced picture, with both the risks and benefits of investing in the product.  Any statements to investors that an investment is “safe as cash” or that it carries no market or credit risk “would raise serious questions under FINRA’s advertising rules,” according to the regulatory group.

A number of products sold to seniors have triggered investigations in recent months, including reverse mortgages, which can help senior tap equity into the home and be beneficial, but which can also include hidden costs. Also popular are deferred annuities, which promise future payments to the investor but which can lock up money for a decade or more.

Conclusion

I am not surprised that one of the vehicles used by the scam artists are deferred annuities, as I have written about this before.  Quite simply, variable annuities pay salespeople very high commissions. Annuities may be suitable for some people, but determining what is best for you should be done by someone who does not gain from the decision. In other words, your best option is to hire a fee-only planner to advise you on whether you really need a deferred annuity. Quite possibly, a fee-only planner will come up with a less expensive solution that achieves the same goals as an annuity.

The article lists several sites which will help you if you think you have been scammed. Of course it may be too late at that point.  Instead, I’d recommend one site that will help you find a fee-only planner, a fiduciary acting in your best interests – the NAPFA website.

As mentioned in the article, salespeople must only follow a “suitability standard” and do not have to tell you about the best option for you.  The difference between a “suitability standard” and a “fiduciary standard” may seem like a technicality, but the effect on your financial wellbeing can be huge.

Read Part 2.

60 Minutes – The 401(k) Recession

Sunday’s 60 Minutes piece on 401(k) retirement plans was rather shallow, and not at all what you would hope (and expect) from CBS’s popular, long-running show. The template for this type of exposé is generally that there is a problem/scandal and some party has been physically hurt or financially injured, and some other party has to bear the blame.

According to the 60 Minutes portrayal (sadly, all true, by the way), people have lost jobs, their portfolios were destroyed and retirement dreams must now be deferred. Steve Kroft interviewed discouraged job seekers at a job fair, which, if nothing else, provided sympathy and some activity to televise. It’s curious (and quite a coincidence!) how the interviewees just happened to have their 401(k) statements with them.

Naturally, he only interviewed older people, and that’s fine; after all, it’s the older folk who are more severely impacted. In my opinion, younger investors will be fine, as long as they continue to contribute to their own 401(k) plans and invest in stocks. In fairness to 60 Minutes, they did spend about a dozen words on this distinction.

According to my analysis of the 60 Minutes template, we must find victims and we must identify villains. Indeed, they found a very sympathetic woman who not only lost a lot of money in her retirement account, but lost her job as well. She cried on camera. And 60 Minutes made a veteran industry spokesman appear unabashedly unsympathetic, though that may have been the result of heavy editing of his comments.

Actually, the 13 minute piece combined two things: (1) people have lost money, and (2) fees are hidden in 401(k) plans and may be excessive. What they downplayed is that more consumer education is needed. Surely, they could have spared a few more sentences than the paltry few they uttered on that particular, very important, issue.

What can we actually learn from the 60 Minutes segment?

People Lost Money

Well, yes. But, what wasn’t said is that that has been true of other investment accounts as well, not just 401(k) plans. Small business owners have also suffered, as have people who have lost their jobs. Why only claim that 401(k)s have let down participants?

Fees

Yes, high fees can hurt investment performance, so 60 Minutes got it right that high (and hidden) fees can be a big problem in retirement plans. But they chose merely to list the types of fees, not quantify them or put them in a useful context. In my experience, some 401(k) plans are quite good. Some are too expensive. On the other hand, many 403(b) plans have very high fees, yet no one is examining them.

Risk

Defined Benefit Plans (pensions) have been in decline for some time. The old pensions were much better for average Americans, because loyal employees knew (more or less) what they would get, and they didn’t have to worry about making investment decisions. But employers were happy to get rid of traditional pensions to help reduce future costs and to reduce the business risk of achieving adequate market returns. Accordingly, employers have emphasized Defined Contribution Plans and largely dropped pensions.

In essence, investment management and investment risk were transferred to employees, and they were not prepared to make wise choices. In a bull market this was not so noticeable.

The Solution

The nature of defined contribution retirement accounts, such as a 401(k) or 403(b) plan, is that, while they provide a tax-deferred avenue to save for retirement, they need to be managed. Someone has to determine an appropriate asset allocation, based on a number of factors. Moreover, if you have other investments, it is ideal to treat all of your investments as one portfolio. And your allocations should probably change over time. As you get closer to retirement age, you generally will need to be somewhat more conservative in your investments.

The fundamental problem is that people thought that they could simply invest in the 401(k) plan without putting too much consideration into the asset allocation. Or it could be that they chose hot funds based entirely on past performance. The show did not go into any details as to why the participants had done so poorly, only that they had.

Clearly, more consumer education is needed. Fortunately, there are efforts currently under way to provide independent, unbiased support that will assist more employees to make informed decisions about their retirement plans.

Suggestion for 60 Minutes

The producers could have done a much better job. Next time, they should compare and contrast two people. One individual who had read a couple of personal finance/investment books or had consulted a financial planner who explained risk and return, asset allocation and the need to become more conservative as one approached retirement. The second individual would be one who did not understand any of these issues and pretty much just winged it with what amounts to a large part of her net worth.

While this comparison would have been useful and very telling, it would, of course, have made for pretty boring TV.

Rolling over to an IRA account

If you have a defined contribution account – 401(k) or 403(b) – from a former employer you can do a tax-deferred transfer to an IRA account. This would give you more control and more choices, but it should be done carefully. To that end, I recommend that you consult a fee-only financial planner. Otherwise, you may end up paying even higher fees than what you are now paying! You might even, heaven forbid, be sold a variable annuity to put in your new IRA.

To be continued.

Questions to Ask When Picking a Financial Adviser

An article in the April 13, 2009 edition of the Wall Street Journal entitled Seven Questions to Ask When Picking a Financial Adviser largely misses the boat. Granted, it is a challenge to find a “reliable” financial advisor; however, the article did a poor job of advising you on how to go about it. Reading it may leave you with the conclusion that it is impossible to find a financial planner you can trust. There can be nothing further from the truth.

I take exception with the emphasis of the article and several of its points.

How does the adviser get paid?

Mentioning that there are different methods of compensation, as the article does, is not sufficient.

As I’ve said in previous posts, the key issue in choosing a financial advisor is finding one who will act in your interests. To determine that, you must know exactly how and who compensates your chosen advisor. If an advisor is fee-only, you’re off to a good start.

Remember that a stockbroker must act in the employer’s best interests, and that you are not his employer. A Registered Investment Advisor, on the other hand, must act in a fiduciary capacity, i.e. in the clients’ best interests.

Stockbrokers are subject only to a “suitability” standard. They are regulated by FINRA, which (despite their rhetoric) is dedicated to protecting stockbrokers and their employers, not necessarily investors.

What do the adviser’s clients say?

This may or may not be relevant or helpful.

Registered Investment Advisors are governed by the 1940 Investment Advisor Act, which expressly prohibits providing “testimonials,” which client references would fall under. Of course, a client recommendation or testimonial could easily be concocted anyway.

What’s the adviser’s track record?

The WSJ article didn’t even come close to getting this issue right. Choosing an advisor based on his/her supposed investing track record is the wrong approach on several counts!

Even if you did find an advisor with a “superior” track record, we know that it is meaningless, because, as has been stated before, “Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results.” If you’ll recall, Bernard Madoff had a superior track record, many testimonials and lots of personal references and endorsements. And we all know what he did.

Key Financial Solutions does not try to “beat the market.” We are not active managers, because studies show that the added costs offset any possible gains of active trading.  Market timing and stock selection do not work.

Since we are not mutual fund managers, we do not have one uniform documented track record. Real financial planners take into account their client’s needs, financial objectives and tax situation before investing their money.

Because our clients have different risk tolerances and time horizons, they naturally have different portfolios and, therefore, different investment performance.

Financial Planning versus Investment Performance

Understand that beating an index is not a financial plan. What a good financial planner will do is give clients the best chance to achieve their goals.  Because the financial plan sets the parameters of the portfolio, a portfolio is simply a tool to realize clients’ goals.

Don’t get me wrong, we are quite proud of our portfolio design, because we use low cost, tax-efficient mutual funds to build globally diversified portfolios.  I am personally fascinated by asset allocation and portfolio strategy.  I use automated reports and individual spreadsheets to monitor a portfolio and to make changes, when appropriate.  Certainly all of these necessary tasks contribute something to investment performance, but not as much as having a plan and sticking to it.

Real Life Returns

Since investor behavior is a very large component of investment returns, we act as coaches so that clients do not make big mistakes.  For example, we manage how clients respond to the euphoria near market tops and to the panic and despair around market bottoms.

Behavioral advice – coaching clients to continue to do the right thing and to avoid doing wrong things – will have a greater impact on investment returns than attempting to choose next year’s hot sector or mutual fund.

Believing in full disclosure and transparency, we report results quarterly so that a client can see exactly how well his or her portfolio is doing. This report is net of all fees, which are clearly stated, rather than being hidden. But I do not recommend giving quarterly results much importance.

Conclusion

When considering whether to retain an adviser for a long-term relationship, avoiding conflicts of interest should be the first consideration. A strict fee-only method of compensation is the best approach for most people. Members of the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors are strictly fee-only planners who sign a Fiduciary Oath.

NAPFA has always maintained that an advisor who is compensated solely through commissions faces immense conflicts of interest. This type of advisor is not paid unless a client buys (or sells) a financial product. A commission-based advisor earns money on each transaction—and thus has a great incentive to encourage transactions that might not be in the interest of the client. Indeed, many commission-based advisors are well-trained and well-intentioned. But the inherent potential conflict is great.

Choosing a Financial Advisor, Part 3

“Fiduciary – A Financial Advisor held to a Fiduciary Standard occupies a position of special trust and confidence when working with a client.  As a fiduciary, the Financial Advisor is required to act with undivided loyalty to the client.  This includes disclosure of how the Financial Advisor is to be compensated and any corresponding conflicts of interest.” – Focus on Fiduciary.

In a previous post, I said that, when looking for a financial advisor, you want someone who puts your interests first, i.e. a fiduciary.  This merits further discussion.  By way of example, lawyers, trustees or doctors are considered fiduciaries. On the other hand, stock brokers, insurance agents and registered representatives are not.

According to the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (NAPFA) web site, Focus on Fiduciary:

Federal and state law requires that Registered Investment Advisors are held to a Fiduciary Standard.  This law requires that an advisor act solely in the best interest of the client, even if that interest is in conflict with the advisor’s financial interest. Investment Advisors must disclose any conflict, or potential conflict, to the client prior to and throughout a business engagement.  Investment Advisors must adopt a Code of Ethics and fully disclose how they are compensated.

Because broker-dealers are not necessarily acting in your best interest, the SEC requires them to add the following disclosure to your client agreement.  Read this disclosure, and decide if this is the type of relationship you want to dictate your financial security:

“Your account is a brokerage account and not an advisory account.  Our interests may not always be the same as yours.  Please ask us questions to make sure you understand your rights and our obligations to you, including the extent of our obligations to disclose conflicts of interest and to act in your best interest.  We are paid both by you and, sometimes, by people who compensate us based on what you buy. Therefore, our profits, and our salespersons’ compensation, may vary by product and over time.”

If you see this disclaimer in your contract, you have been warned that you are not working with a fiduciary.  My question to you is, “Why would you even consider working with someone who has issued you this warning?”

After all, you engage a financial advisor to look after your interests. In my opinion, having a trusted relationship is not possible after you have read the warning quoted above.  Since commissioned representatives receive incentives for selling one investment over another, how do you ever know why someone recommends one investment product to you over another? How do you know what it is actually costing you?

I wholeheartedly agree with NAPFA’s conclusion:

NAPFA has always maintained that an advisor who is compensated solely through commissions faces immense conflicts of interest.  This type of advisor is not paid unless a client buys (or sells) a financial product.  A commission-based advisor earns money on each transaction—and thus has a great incentive to encourage transactions that might not be in the interest of the client.  Indeed, many commission-based advisors are well-trained and well-intentioned. But the inherent potential conflict is great.

I believe that a strict fee-only approach is the best way of working with clients.  I want my clients to consider me as a trusted advisor and true partner, not a salesperson.

To be continued.

photo credit: Rui Almeida (Portugal)

Choosing a Financial Advisor, Part 2

“A Fee-Only financial advisor charges clients directly for his or her advice and/or ongoing management. No other financial reward is provided, directly or indirectly, by any other institution. Fee-Only financial advisors are selling only one thing: their knowledge.” – National Association of Personal Financial Advisors.

In a previous post, I wrote that a fee-only financial planner might be better choice for you than a financial planner who is compensated by commissions. Here is a continuation of an article by the Consumer Federation of America, an advocacy, research, education, and service organization.

The Financial Planning “Name Game”

If a fee-only financial planner is probably your best bet, what about all those other planners out there? As consumers have started to wake up to the conflicts of interest that result from commission-based compensation, more and more financial planners have adopted confusing terminology designed to obscure how they are compensated. Here are a few of the most common that you should be on the look-out for:

Fee-and-commission. This is the now somewhat out of fashion term for a planner who earns a fee for developing a financial plan, then earns commissions selling the products to implement that plan. For years, planners were able to sell this arrangement as being in their client’s best interests on the grounds that they were more objective than commission-only salespeople and more affordable and convenient than fee-only planners.

Since consumers have become more conscious of the total costs of fee-and-commission planning and the incentives commission-dependent planners have to steer them into costly and possibly inappropriate products, few planners now use this relatively candid terminology, though the majority continue to practice in this fashion.

Fee-based. This is today’s more fashionable terminology for fee-and-commission financial planning. The conflicts are the same, but the candor is gone. Some “fee-based” financial planners will tell clients they can work either on a fee-only basis or on a fee-and-commission basis if the client wants to implement the plan through them. Somehow, however, the bulk of their clients end up as fee-and-commission clients. The term “fee-based” is misleading, so you should be wary of those who use it.

Fee-offset. Under a fee-offset arrangement, a planner imposes a fee for drawing up a strategy, then reduces up to 100 percent of that fee to account for any commissions that may be earned in implementing the plan. The problem of commission bias is less obvious, but it remains. After all, if a financial plan costs $2,000 and the planner earns $10,000 in commissions for selling the needed products, he or she will be able to pocket $8,000 in conflict-producing commissions …even after totally offsetting the cost of the original plan.”

Interpretation

How your financial advisor is compensated should be important to you, because being paid a commission results in the (very distinct) possibility of a conflict of interest. Fee-only means the advisor cannot accept commissions. If the financial advisor’s paycheck comes from a brokerage firm, then the advisor is an employee and owes loyalty to the firm. When the paycheck comes directly from you, your interests come first.

As many consumers have discovered, some brokers regularly rely on obfuscation – confusing them with dozens of “facts,” figures and recommendations until their head is reeling. It’s disingenuous for them to suggest that you are not paying a fee, because the mutual fund (or insurance company) pays it. Certainly, no one would assume that the fees come from the benevolent tooth fairy. I call it obfuscation, but that’s really just a polite way of saying that they’re lying to you.

What you really need is someone who will put your financial interests first. This is a good description of someone who acts as a fiduciary.

Since labels for advisors – fee-based, fee-offset – are often confusing (on purpose, in my opinion) your best defense is to ask very pointed questions and expect very direct answers.

Question #1
You: “How are you compensated?”
Advisor: “I am compensated solely by my clients.” Correct answer.
Advisor: “Oh, you needn’t worry about that! My fees get paid by the insurance company or mutual fund.” Incorrect answer.

Question #2
You: “Do you act as a fiduciary?”
Advisor: “I always act as a fiduciary.” Correct answer.
Advisor: “Sometimes.” Incorrect answer.

Question #3
You: “Will you put that in writing?”
Advisor: “Yes, I will put that in writing.” Correct answer.
Advisor: “My word is my bond.” Incorrect answer.

You should be aware that members of the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors sign a Fiduciary Oath.

I actually give my Fiduciary Oath to prospective clients at the first meeting along with the Privacy Notice.

To be continued.

photo credit: emuphoto

Choosing a Financial Advisor, Part 1

“You don’t need 99.9 percent of what Wall Street is selling. It’s expensive, unsuitable, or stupid. Most investments are designed to profit the brokers, banks, and insurance companies, not you.” – Jane Bryant Quinn.

The quality of the financial advice that you get is dependent upon many things, including the training and academic background of your financial advisor. It also depends, in large measure, on how your advisor is compensated. Researching this issue and understanding what best serves your particular interests is a task well worth pursuing. Reading books on financial planning is one way to arm yourself because, in my opinion, it is nothing short of a war. I hope to do my part by providing you with a series of articles on the subject.

If you take the “easy way out” and merely go with the investment firm that has the best (i.e. most expensive) commercials on TV and the glitziest print ads in the local newspapers, consider this. You may be lining the pockets of your advisor, with your gold.

For one purely objective view on the subject, consider the Consumer Federation of America, an advocacy, research, education, and service organization. In an article on choosing a financial advisor, they argue that using a “fee-only” advisor may be your best choice.

Financial Planners

The way in which a financial planner is compensated can directly affect the advice he or she gives clients. A relatively small percentage of the individuals offering financial advice actually get paid exclusively for giving such advice. The majority earn some or all of their income selling mutual funds, annuities, insurance, and other financial products to implement their recommendations. “Advisers” who are also salespeople, however, inevitably face a conflict of interest and will almost certainly be tempted to steer clients into products in which they have a financial interest. The greater the adviser’s dependence on commission income, the greater the conflict. In the end, that conflict could cost you both in out-of-pocket expenses and in the quality of advice you receive.

Long-Term Cost

One of the chief attractions of commission-based financial planning is that it appears affordable. Typically, commission-based planners charge a relatively low fee or no fee, for the “advice,” expecting to earn the real money on the back end, when they sell the products to implement their recommendations. When you buy a product to implement that plan, however, a percentage of the money you spend goes to pay a commission to the planner. Ultimately, the price you pay includes not just the commission itself, but the money it would have earned over time had it been invested. In assessing the costs of financial planning, therefore, you have to include the cost of implementation.

Quality of Advice

The increase in implementation costs is not the only price you pay for commission-based planning. You may also pay in the form of poor advice. After all, when a financial “adviser” earns most of his or her money as a financial salesperson, the product sales tend to drive the process. In the worst case scenario, the planning becomes nothing more than window dressing to attract clients for the real money-making business of selling products. Clients are offered one-size-fits-all plans that inevitably lead to the purchase of a handful of high-commission products.

Even those commission-based advisers who attempt to offer comprehensive financial advice still can find themselves biased by compensation considerations when it comes time to implement their recommendations. After all, the more the adviser lowers the initial fees to attract business, and the more time he or she spends on the planning process, the more he or she must earn in the implementation phase to make that investment of time pay off.

Under such circumstances, even the best of commission-based planners is unlikely to recommend no-load or low-load products, for example. Other less scrupulous planners may recommend an investment, such as a particular mutual fund or annuity, simply because of the special incentives or higher commissions they receive.

The temptation for planners to recommend higher commission products carries another risk for clients. Product sponsors tend to offer higher commissions on those products that are more difficult to sell, because they are riskier. Thus, in pushing higher commission products, the planner may encourage you to take unnecessary risks with your money.

“Fee-Only” May Be Your Best Choice

So, if you are looking for objective financial advice, a fee-only financial planner is probably your best bet. Fee-only financial planners are compensated solely by fees paid by their clients. They can be paid in a variety of ways—a flat fee or retainer, an hourly fee, a percentage of assets under management, or a percentage of income from investments. The key is that they do not accept commissions or compensation from any other source.

Fee-only financial planning does not necessarily eliminate every conceivable form of conflict-of-interest. When fee-only planners “sell” portfolio management services, for example, they may have a financial incentive to recommend those services to clients. The fee-only approach is, however, subject to fewer conflicts than any other form of financial advice. Furthermore, because fee-only planners are compensated solely by the client, there are no hidden third parties in the relationship and thus, no divided loyalties.

Conclusion

I work strictly on a fee-only basis. That was my choice in setting up my practice, as it is the kind of arrangement I would want if I were the client.

Since everyone’s circumstances are different, you may be the rare individual who can best be served by a financial advisor who is compensated by commission. But, you won’t know that unless you get a second opinion. As Jane Bryant Quinn said, “If you don’t know much about investing yourself, it’s hard to tell good advice from bad.”

The majority of fee-only financial planners are members of the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (NAPFA), an organization started in 1983. To find a fee-only advisor in your area, call NAPFA at 1-800-FEE-ONLYor visit their homepage at www.feeonly.org

To be continued.

photo credit: Office Now