Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

fiduciary standard

Q&A: Should you pay for a financial plan before hiring an advisor?

By

Dear Liz: My spouse and I are retired. We have substantial investment assets, significant cash reserves and considerable equity in our home. Over nearly 40 years together, we’ve worked with several financial advisors, but every decade or so, we’ve become dissatisfied and moved on. Now, at this stage of life, we want a clearer roadmap for the next five to 10 years and beyond.

We’ve read your columns for years and have taken your advice about fiduciary financial advisors seriously. We’re currently looking for a new independent advisor, but we’re finding that many only offer financial planning if we also hire them under an assets-under-management (AUM) arrangement. Others will provide a standalone financial plan for a flat fee prior to having a client come on board for asset management.

We feel strongly that before committing to a long-term advisor relationship, we should first get an independent, comprehensive financial plan — essentially a snapshot of where we are now and how best to move forward. Does that approach make sense? Should we prioritize paying for a standalone financial plan before deciding whether to hire someone for ongoing investment management?

Answer: As you’ve discovered, many fiduciary fee-only advisors bundle financial planning advice with investment management because AUM fees are more lucrative than charging for plans. But that doesn’t mean it’s the best approach for every client.

Paying for a financial plan means shelling out more money up front, but you’ll get the opportunity to check out the advisor’s approach, communication style and attention to detail before entrusting them with your investments. The plan should include all the usual areas such as insurance, taxes, asset allocation and estate planning, with a special emphasis on the topics that are important at your stage of life, such as sustainable withdrawal rates, paying for long-term care and protecting your assets from fraud and cognitive decline.

Q&A: Is it better to have a fee-only financial advisor?

By

Dear Liz: As a certified financial planner for the past 31 years who has never run afoul of any regulatory body, I cringe every time I hear you recommend people seek out only fee-only financial planners!

While we certainly do fee-based work where appropriate, sometimes it is simply better for the consumer if their advisor receives a commission not a fee. As an example, assuming all other factors being equal, if a client were to maintain an account for 10 years with a fee-only advisor charging 1% per year, wouldn’t the client pay considerably more in fees than if they placed their portfolio in a commission-based account where the advisor were to receive a one-time 5% fee?

I certainly understand conflicts can arise, but don’t they do so in most aspects in life? And isn’t this really just a matter of ethics? Can’t a fee-only advisor lack ethics just like an advisor who receives commissions?

Answer: The most important differential among advisors is whether they’re fiduciaries and therefore obliged to put their clients’ best interests first. As a certified financial planner, you’re held to a fiduciary standard and must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to your clients.

Most advisors are held to a lower “suitability” standard. That means the advisor can recommend investments that pay higher commissions, even if those investments aren’t the best option for their clients.

Fee-only financial planners typically are fiduciaries and have opted for a compensation arrangement that avoids the conflicts of interest inherent with commission-based recommendations. These planners are paid only by the fees they charge their clients, which can be hourly rates, project fees, retainers or a percentage of assets under management.

Q&A: Beware the Blurred Line Between Fee-Only and Commission-Based Advice

By

Dear Liz: I am very overwhelmed with life so I’ll try to stick to where I need your help. My 68-year-old husband has been diagnosed with dementia. I thought we were responsible, having a nice nest egg of over $2 million, a house that is paid off and no debts. However, finding out long-term care costs, I am now terrified that it will all be depleted. Per your advice, I found a fee-only financial planner. I wanted his opinion about long-term care insurance for myself (my husband no longer qualifies). Turns out the planner will be the one to get the policy for me, should I decide to go forward. He’s recommending a hybrid policy with a death benefit, which means if I end up not using the long-term care coverage, the value will go to our children. I’m uncomfortable with the fact that this planner has an obvious stake with this long-term care policy and therefore might be biased with his advice.

Answer: If your advisor has an “obvious stake” in the policy you buy, implying that he will be paid a commission, then by definition he is not a fee-only financial planner. Fee-only financial planners are compensated solely by the fees they charge their clients.

What you may have encountered is a fee-based advisor, who collects fees from clients but also accepts commissions.

You want to be able to trust that the advice you get is in your best interests. That means you need a fiduciary advisor: someone who is obligated to put your interests ahead of their own and who is willing to put that promise in writing. If your advisor isn’t a fiduciary, you can find one who is through one of several organizations that represent true fee-only advisors, such as the National Assn. of Personal Financial Advisors, the Garrett Planning Network, the XY Planning Network or the Alliance of Comprehensive Planners.

The advisor also should be able to refer you to an elder law attorney who can discuss ways to protect your finances from being devastated by long-term care costs, or you can seek referrals directly from the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys.

Q&A: Was it a mistake to incur a large tax bill?

By

Dear Liz: We are a retired couple in our late 70s. I worked as a carpenter and my wife worked as a nurse. We saved and invested for the long haul with a well-known discount brokerage. Last summer, we were wooed by another financial services firm with a “much better idea.” Our combined portfolio at the time was $1,985,000. We transferred our holdings, including $340,000 in a taxable account.

The transfer triggered a capital gain of $184,000 as the new company sold the old funds and reinvested the money according to their plan. This caused us to owe about $50,000 in income tax this year rather than breaking even or receiving a refund. Our holdings have grown to $2,013,119 after our 2026 required minimum distributions have been taken. Was this a good move given the large tax bill? Our tax accountant is very critical of the sale of these funds.

Answer: Your accountant may not be in the best position to evaluate whether this was the right move for you.

Tax pros are typically focused on saving their clients money. That often means delaying or avoiding moves that could trigger capital gains taxes. Sometimes, though, such moves are necessary to avoid even bigger financial costs down the road.

The stock market gains of recent years mean that many people have portfolios that are now too heavily invested in stocks, particularly if they haven’t been regularly rebalancing their investment mix. These stock-heavy portfolios can leave people painfully exposed to downturns.

I redacted the names of the firms, but both companies you mentioned in your letter have good reputations. Your previous brokerage caters to do-it-yourself investors who want to minimize fees, while your new one provides fiduciary advice, meaning that they’re required to put their clients’ best interests first. It’s easy to imagine you investing for decades on your own without an advisor’s help or appropriate rebalancing; the new firm sees how risky your portfolio has become and diversifies it after careful discussions with you about your age, situation and goals.

Imagination is not reality, though, and the most concerning part of your letter is your vagueness about why you moved your money. You should be able to articulate in basic terms why this transfer made sense. “Our portfolio was too risky” or “I had too many of the same type of stocks” or “I realized I needed help” are all appropriate reasons. “A much better idea” is not.

The right move now might be to get a second opinion from a fee-only financial planner. Someone who charges by the hour could review your portfolio and let you know if you’re now on the right track. You can get referrals from the Garrett Planning Network at https://garrettplanningnetwork.com/.

Q&A: What to do when your financial advisor isn’t doing right by you

By

Dear Liz: My husband and I are in our 80s, living in a retirement community. Our investment account is valued at $550,000. This has to see us through till we die. We have no pension, no other assets. Social Security provides $2,760 a month and we are in the lowest tax bracket. Our financial advisor is using tax loss harvesting “to save us from capital gains tax.” We are both uncomfortable with this. Taking a loss on purpose doesn’t feel like a secure path and should be for people with a long-term future. Should we ask him to stop using this method of trading?

Answer: Tax loss harvesting involves selling investments that have gone down in value to offset some or all of the gains from investments that have gained in value. The point is to reduce capital gains taxes. Since you’re in the lowest tax bracket, however, your federal tax rate on long-term capital gains is effectively zero. It’s hard to imagine how your advisor would justify tax loss harvesting, given your situation.

Go ahead and ask them. The answer should give you some insight into how much your advisor knows, or cares, about your individual circumstances. Obviously, you should halt the tax loss harvesting if there’s no good reason to do it, but you might also want to start looking for a new advisor.

Keep in mind that most financial advisors don’t have to put your best interests first. They can recommend investments or pursue strategies that make them money, regardless of whether the recommendations are the best fit for your financial situation.

If you want an advisor committed to putting you first, you’ll need to seek out one who is willing to be held to a fiduciary standard. Such advisors include certified financial planners, certified public accountants (including those who are personal financial specialists) and accredited financial counselors. A fiduciary would have taken the time to understand your financial situation and then crafted a strategy to best fit your circumstances.

Q&A: Be patient! Find an expert!

By

Dear Liz: I have a quick question and would like a personal response. What email address can I use?

Answer: You can use the email address of the financial planner you hire to advise you.

Just because a question is quick doesn’t mean the answer will be. Answers to financial planning questions take time and effort to craft, plus the appropriate response may vary depending on the details of the questioner’s circumstances. This column answers a few questions of general interest for educational and entertainment purposes. A hired advisor can answer an array of queries and provide truly personalized guidance to help you get the most from your money.