- 10,313
None of what you are assuming is even remotely close to accurate.
The core of "Fiduciary vs. Non-Fiduciary" has nothing to do with how much the Client pays. Often, for accounts under $1mm, the business model of a Fiduciary is more expensive for the client over the long term. However, hypothetically, the client receives more services and a higher level of service from the Fiduciary Adviser.
It is about being a "salesman" who sells whatever product the client decides to buy vs. being an "Adviser" who makes recommendations that are personally tailored to a persons circumstances.
Officially, on paper, the two things are totally separate business models and provide a very different set of services. In the real world, it is not that simple at all... in the real world people want tailored recommendations from their salesman, and they either dont have enough assets for a Fiduciary to take them on as a client, or they dont want to pay a $1k+ planning fee to set up the account, or they dont want to be "told what to do" by an Adviser. Im not saying that no-one wants the services of a Fiduciary Financial Adviser... just not everyone, and especially not most people with small amounts of money they are trying to invest.
------------------------
It is also a fallacy that the least expensive fund is always the "best" for the client. Top rated Actively Managed Funds have consistently outperformed Index Funds over rolling 3/5/10 year periods.
Obviously you want to minimize expenses as much as possible. But the lowest cost does not equal the best value or the best thing for the clients situation... not even within Index Funds. (not all index funds are the same... even if they follow the same index)
------------------------
You also dont seem to grasp the concept of how a Fee Based Adviser (Fiduciary Adviser) gets paid. They either charge a Fee on top of the "low fund expense", or they charge a hard Fee that the client cuts a check for after the first meeting (many charge both).
The TOTAL COST of a Fiduciary is not less expensive, unless you have over $1mm in assets to place with that Adviser. (obviously that number varies from adviser to adviser, but that is a good generalization)
You are only considering and comparing a tiny fraction of the overall picture.
As I said before, Fiduciary Duty is about disclosure, transparency, & due diligence. Cost is secondary to all of that. There is a cost to the "no commission" annuity or the no-load funds. That cost just comes out of a different pocket and is fully transparent and fully disclosed.
--------------------------------------------
Comparing Commissions vs. Fees, is like comparing a basic car wash/wax to a full service detailing. Is one better overall for your car? Depends on your situation....
Last edited:
