The Future of Financial Planning Advice, Part 2

Advisor Perspectives welcomes guest contributions. The views presented here do not necessarily represent those of Advisor Perspectives.

Part 1 of this article provided numerous examples of how financial planning is more nuanced, complex, and diverse than - thought leaders who observe the industry acknowledge. The idealized notion of a commission- and AUM-free financial planning world that thought leaders such as Dan Solin, Sara Grillo, and Bob Veres foresee is not necessarily desirable or feasible.

To refresh, in Part 1, I presented the following articles as examples of Dan’s, Bob’s, and Sara’s positions on compensation models for financial planners

Dan Solin, Five Reasons Your Asset-Based Fee Model Won’t Survive (11/14/2016)
Dan Solin, Five More Reasons Your Asset-Based Fee Model Won’t Survive (11/21/16)
Bob Veres, Don’t Fear the Meter: The Inescapable Future for the Hourly Revenue Model (12/6/2021)
Sara Grillo, The Price Advisors Will Pay for Ignoring Flat Fees (3/25/2022)

In this article, I explain how attempts to view advisor compensation through a moral lens instead of an economics lens lead to false conclusions about the relative merits of each pricing model and hence to misguided predictions for the future of planner compensation.