I am frequently asked: what is a “fee-only advisor” and why should I work with one? First, a fee-only advisor’s compensation comes directly from the client. The advisor does not receive any commissions or referral fees from selling financial products (such as annuities, insurance or investments). A fee-only advisor may receive compensation from assets under management, retainer fees or an hourly rate. I focus the majority of my business on retainer fees.
In contrast, a “fee-based” advisor receives compensation from both charging a fee for completing a financial plan and from commissions on the products recommended as part of the “implementation strategy.” Many times the financial plan is offered at severe discount. Their real profit comes from selling you the products they recommend. Their belief is that by charging you a fee for their “objective” advice you are more likely to “implement” the strategies they recommend.
A commission-only advisor makes his compensation strictly from selling you financial products that have a “load” or commission attached to them. In my humble opinion, I tend to trust “commission-only” advisors more then “fee-based” advisors because you know they are only getting paid from what you buy from them and they do not have any ulterior motive in offering you a “plan.”
I personally believe each of these advisors has a place in the financial service industry. However, the main thing I ask from each one of them is to disclose to the client how they are going to get paid. The main reason why you should work with a fee-only advisor is they can give you objective, unbiased financial advice free from the potential conflict of interest inherent in product sales. Yes, the fee-only advisor is still selling to you, although the “product” he is selling is an education and trustworthy advice.
When it comes to your money follow this common sense rule: “When you know how your advisor is getting paid you will know who he is really working for!”
You may find this article from Money Magazine interesting: http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/27/pf/planner_advice.moneymag/index.htm
These two articles do a good job explaining the pros and cons of variable annuities in detail.
I got asked the other day what I had against annuities. Let me first explain that my issue has more to do with variable annuities over fixed annuities. Fixed annuities can serve a legitimate purpose in a retired individual’s portfolio. (There are options that may be better though). I do not wish this blog entry to take up too much of your time because if you do a Google search and look up “variable annuities” you will find other people have already written about this topic. What I do want to address in this entry is 1) the proper location of one’s investments and 2) the tax consequences of investing in a variable annuity.
Too many tax professionals do not have a good sense of the investment side of an individual’s financial life and too many investment professionals do not have a good sense of the tax consequences of the recommendations they make. Have you ever wondered why when you talk to most investment professionals they always lead with the disclaimer that you need to discuss with your tax professional the tax consequences of the recommended investments? Is this a CYA (cover your assets) because they are abnegating a large portion of being the trusted financial adviser you thought they would be?