Recent Comments
- John Polk said “I knew Charles when he was EVP of The Atlanta Chamber and I worked for ...” on Memories of Oklahoma City circa 1993
- John Polk said “Back in the mid-80's and early 90's, Cleveland was actually recognized as one of the ...” on Economic development in NEO: A view from the street-level
- John Polk said “Is there any way to substantiate Dimora's claim re: GCP and the PD, other than ...” on Cleveland’s new development dynamic?
- George Nemeth said “Like all glimmers of newness in CLE+ I expect this one to be crushed too” on Cleveland’s new development dynamic?
- Cleveland’s new development dynamic? | Brewed Fresh Daily said “[...] by Ohio voters, as gambling interests convert the Ohio constitution into a zoning ordinance. ...” on Ohio’s casino deal gets a bit more messy
- About BDP Comments
Meta
Frank Revy · 5 reasons why you should choose a fee-only financial planner
April 17th, 2009
Reason #1:
Commission based and fee based financial planners compensation solely depends on whether or not you bring your assets under their management.
A fee only financial planner is paid similar to an attorney or accountant. Therefore, their advice is not contingent on making a sale.
Thus a fee-only planner has no ‘conflict of interest’ when giving you investment advice. They are free to be completely objective since their pay is not contingent on making a commission or charging a fee for assets under management.
Keep your eyes open for the remaining four reasons.
Last 5 posts by Frank Revy
- How are financial planners compensated? - April 8th, 2009
- Tax Deadline - March 20th, 2009
- The Baristas Rocked It! - February 11th, 2009
