재무 설계사 수수료 구조 및 고려 사항

### 재무 설계사 수수료 구조 및 비용
* 💰 재무 설계사에게는 **수수료 기반, 수수료 기반, 수수료 전용**의 세 가지 주요 수수료 구조가 있습니다.
* 🏷 수수료 기반 어드바이저는 판매하는 상품에 따라 보수를 받는 반면, **수수료 기반 어드바이저는 고객이 직접 지불**하고 수수료를 받을 수도 있습니다.
* 🔒 수수료만 받는 어드바이저는 **고객으로부터만 보수를 받으므로 고객의 이해관계가 일치**하고 이해 상충이 줄어듭니다.
* 📜 신탁 기준에 따르면 어드바이저는 자신의 이익보다 고객의 이익을 우선시해야 하지만, **적합성과 신탁 기준의 구분이 모호**해졌습니다.
* ⚖ 신탁 기준을 준수하는 수수료만 받는 어드바이저는 **전체 재무 설계사 중 소수**에 불과합니다.
* ⏳ 시간당 어드바이저는 **시간당 200~400달러의 비용**을 청구하며 저렴한 솔루션을 제공하지만, 거래 관계가 될 수 있습니다.
* 📅 리테이너 기반 어드바이저는 **연간 2,000달러에서 7,500달러 이상**을 청구하므로 지속적인 관계를 유지할 수 있지만 포괄적인 서비스를 제공하지 못할 수도 있습니다.
* 📈 자산 관리 어드바이저는 관리하는 자산의 **일정 비율(보통 1% 내외)**을 수수료로 부과하여 고객과 인센티브를 조정하고 종합적인 서비스를 제공합니다.

재정 고문은 커미션, 수수료 기반 또는 수수료만 받는 구조로 보수를 받을 수 있으며, 각 구조에는 장단점이 있습니다.

[Music] I know when I go to a nice restaurant and there's not prices on the menu got like oh gosh what is this place there's no telling what this place cost or you go on their website and they don't publish what their costs are you're like oh this is this is not good so there obviously has to be a cost for somebody to get all this can you talk walk us through the different versions or the different structures you might pay if you were paying a fee on for a financial advisor so when it comes to financial advisors there are really three main fee structures three different ways financial advisors get paid the first is the commission side and these are more sales-based positions this is someone who gets paid based on a product that they're selling so rather than you the client paying then there's some third party the company they work for the company they represent that is paying them a commission and it's a sales-based role generally well then there's fee based now this is someone who gets paid

Direct from the client, but there's also a commission-based structure, so it kind of blends both of them. There is a good chance that a fee-based advisor could be more holistic. It's going to be less likely with a commission-based advisor because of the way their compensation is structured. Fee-based, you increase your likelihood, but then there's the third area, and this is fee only. This is the one that we love. This is where the only way a fee-only advisor gets paid is directly from you, the client, so there's no third party that they are representing. They're not trying to get paid based on products they're selling or products they're pushing. They are getting paid solely and exclusively from you, the client. We like it because it seems to align the interest, and it seems to remove a lot of conflicts of interest. Well, it's also gotten confusing out there. I mean, years ago, you had the suitability standard, and then you had the fiduciary standard, and it was kind of easy to tell who was if if you had

somebody who had the suitability standard, they were selling you something. But if you had somebody had the fiduciary standard, they were, you know, they only got paid, and they actually were held to a higher legal standard if they put their, that your interest, the client's interest even ahead of their own, you know, was held to that legal standard. The government, and, and, and they were doing good work or trying to do good work by adding the fiduciary rule on retirement assets and other things, but in a lot of ways, it's muddied the water. It really has CU. Now you have so many people that, on a portion of your assets, they're going to still be trying to sell you products or doing something that's under the suitability standard, but then on another portion of your asset, are going to be doing, because the government mandates it, a fiduciary standard. So now, you know, instead of you knowing who is doing what, it kind of gets complex and confusing. So that's why what I love is somebody who signs up and

does fee only and then joins Napa XY planning or Garrett they usually have to take an oath saying look I am going on the record, and it's not just because the government mandated this. I'm actually putting myself on record that I'm taking this fiduciary standard, and I'm putting my clients ahead of even my desires. And if you add up the membership of all those organizations I just said, it's still less than 2% of all the people that the Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies as financial advisers. And that's why we want to focus on this 2% that are willing to go above and beyond, not what's mandated by the government, but actually signed a decree, signed an oath, and says your interest comes first. So even inside of the fee-only structure, there's some confusion, and we want to hopefully bring that light because even fee-only advisers might have different ways of their compensation are structured. And there are three main tranches that you can look at. There are ones that are paid by

the hour to B fee only. There are ones that have a fixed fee or a retainer-based model, and then there are those that charge assets under management. That's a percentage of assets that they are helping you manage. So let's walk through the costs of each, and then let's walk through the pros and cons of each of these different structures. So for hourly advisors, the cost for an hour plan is generally going to be somewhere between $200 to $400 per hour. You'd say that's probably aligned with what we've seen out there in the market. That's pretty reasonable. The benefit of hourly is it's probably one of the lower cost solutions when it comes to getting a holistic advisor. You're going to kind of know exactly what you're getting into if they're going to work for you for six hours or for eight hours to help you develop a plan. You're going to pay for that. That's probably going to be the lowest cost financial advisory solution. Yeah, and it is great for those one-times

cuz like I told you, there was a part of my career where I had a very successful individual hired me to fix some problems that he had. Definitely fell into that mechanic category. So now let's talk about some of the cons. One of the cons is this can often be a very transactional relationship, rather than building an ongoing, in-depth, intimate relationship. It's going to be based on a project basis. Hey, I'm going to work with you by the hour, and when you have a problem or when you have an issue, that's when I'm going to be thinking about you. And there may be an incentive for them to be very transactional, much less relational. Yeah, I actually, I don't mind CU. I look back on that client that hired me, that's where his need was. CU, he was primarily very illiquid in real estate. He needed somebody to fix his situation on the estate side. He needed somebody to fix, you know, his risk profile with all these cars and so forth. I think that's

what he needed, and I met him where he was, and I love that this is out there. I will tell you that I think for somebody in you saw this, he didn't want me going too much above and beyond because of you talk about is because if I did more, it was going to cost him more. So, he started having some apprehension about going any further, and then also I recognize that if you're trying to change the financial landscape, there are, as I shared with you, 98% of people, of the advisers out there, are working off a completely different model, and you might be the most brilliant financial adviser in the world, but you're probably only, and we're going to talk about the Dunar principle in a minute, you can only help so many people. So, it's just hard, you're limited by your time. So, the scalability of this is pretty small, you're going to only be able to help a few hundred people at a time, and with Millions upon Millions, I mean we know that if you take

out housing equity and actually look at liquid equity. You know, liquid assets is only 5 million millionaires in America. Well, if you can only have 200, you know, clients or 150 clients, you're just not going to be able to do have a huge scalable impact. So that's the hourly feeling model. Now let's talk about the retainer model. Most financial planning retainers are somewhere between 2,000 to 7,500 plus per year, but this varies wildly. Some retainers can be as high as $50,000 a year. Retainer it very much depends on the client and on their unique circumstance, but there are some benefits to the retainer-based model. This does allow you to have an ongoing relationship. If you do have someone on retainer, they're probably going to know what's going on in your life. There's going to be a back and forth. There's going to be access that you're going to have to the client. The client's going to have to you, and there's going to be a

fixed cost associated with that. Again, going into it, you know exactly what you're going to be paying for services, unless for some reason the scope of what you're asking the adviser for changes. Yeah, and it's also available. I mean, this is something because you hear us, you know, some of financial advisers, they're the advisers for Millionaires and above, a retainer, especially if it's $2,000, $3,000 a year, it is going to be more accessible to people with smaller net worth. So if you think, hey, I need an ongoing relationship, I don't have assets for this person to manage, a retainer model makes a lot of sense in those type of situations. I love it. So now let's talk about some of the cons of the retainer-based model. The first is that it's less likely to be a coner service. When we say coner, a lot of advisers will not only help you design a plan and put a plan in place, but they will actually help you implement and

manage the plan through time with the retainer-based model. There's a good chance that they're going to design a plan for you, and then they're going to hand it over to you for you to implement. So there's a really good chance that it's not going to be as hands-off for you, and it's not going to be as much of a comprehensive service as some of the other advisory models. When you say, I mean, let's talk when you're setting up maybe because I think that there are retainers that going help you with doing the paperwork, filling out the paperwork. You're just saying like ongoing support, ongoing tax planning, and other things. It's just not going to be a direct relationship like others, but it is. I mean, it's going to have a harder time. And then the other thing I worry about is that if you were getting $6,000, $7,000 per CL is there an incentive or somewhat of a conflict that you'd be better served if

you had 400 clients, then if you had 15 C it does incentivize volume over the quality, and that's just something to be aware of. So if you're looking for a retainer-based advisor, that's something to know. Let's talk about the third type of advisor, the assets under management advisor. This is an advisor that charges a percentage of the assets that they're helping you manage. Oftentimes it's something around 1% of your total managed portfolio. So you look at the value of your portfolio, you multiply it times the fee percentage, and that tells you what you're paying for the advisor. We think the benefits of this are one, you have aligned incentives. If your accounts go up in value, the advisor makes more money. If your accounts go down in value, the advisor makes less money. So naturally, your advisor wants the same thing that you want. Another big benefit is that with the assets under management model, it does allow for corner service. This is something that is not necessarily going to be it's going to be brains on hands.

off they want you involved in the process, but you don't have to be the one that actually implements the rebalancing. You don't have to be the one that actually implements the tax loss harvesting. They might be able to go and do an income tax return review. They're able to provide more rolled-up White Glove service. Well, just like we were talking about an hourly, there's a the con is there's a friction for use, meaning every time they call you, it's kind of like when you call your CPA or attorney, you're like, Man, I need this, but I know I'm going to have a fee, an invoice is just going to show up if I use this. What I love is I think about an advisor. One of our advisers came and was talking about they have they work with, they work with the adult children, they work with the parent, the older parent, and there was a concern. They were over at the older parent's house, and there was a concern that came up. The adult child called it. We were able to

kind of step in and, and not only do we help spouses, we help, you know, adult children with their parents, it since there's a relationship there, you know, there's no calling the 1800 number, you know, give the variables all over you actually know it, and you're able to meet people where they need the help, and actually try to get them to be the best version of themselves, and also take away the hardship of some of the things that happen with money. Money makes things hard sometimes, yep. Another benefit of the assets under management model is that for most advisory firms, they have a decreasing effective fee, meaning the larger your portfolio gets, the smaller the effective fee because it's a tiered percentage. So a lot of folks may start their relationship with advisor paying x%, but fast forward 5, 10, 15 years in the future, the percentage they're paying for the advisory service is actually a much smaller portion of their total net worth or their total portfolio than it was when they began the engagement. So all

those things I see on social media where it says that you know if you pay this fee, and when your assets are $10 million, you're not really paying, we're going to get there, buckle up, we are going to go through that. Let's talk about some of the negatives of the assets under management model. The first is, and you hear this, these types of advisers tend to focus on higher net worth individuals and higher net worth clients. In my experience, that's true. Most asset advisers will have some sort of asset minimum that they work with. This is exactly why I started this show, realize I knew I had a high minimum, I knew I was only working with certain people, and in 2006, I was like, Hey, I'm going to start giving people free education so they can be better with money because this shouldn't be something just for rich people, this should be something for everyone so that the younger version of myself would have had a shortcut to do this. We've tried to do that so that we can cut the corner off.

of that con. That's the abundance cycle. Is when you reach that success. Hey, maybe you'll think about who planted all those seeds.

How to Understand Financial Advisor Fee Structures (Commission, Fee-Based, and Fee-Only)

Bring confidence to your wealth building with simplified strategies from The Money Guy. Learn how to apply financial tactics that go beyond common sense and help you reach your money goals faster. Make your assets do the heavy lifting so you can quit worrying and start living a more fulfilled life.

Subscribe today to stay up to date with our latest episodes, livestreams, and highlight videos: https://www.youtube.com/c/MoneyGuyShow?sub_confirmation=1

Are you ready to go beyond common sense when it comes to your money? Check out all the free resources The Money Guy Show provides: https://moneyguy.com/resources/



The Money Guy Show

재무 설계사를 위한 다양한 수수료 구조 이해하기

재정 고문은 제3자로부터 수수료를 받거나, 수수료와 수수료를 혼합하여 지급받거나, 고객의 수수료로만 지급받을 수 있습니다.

수수료만 받는 어드바이저는 이해관계가 일치하고 이해 상충이 줄어든다는 점에서 선호됩니다.

신탁 규칙의 도입으로 자산별로 서로 다른 기준을 요구함으로써 복잡성이 가중되어 고객이 어드바이저의 보상 방식을 이해하기 어려워졌습니다.

수수료 전용 재무 설계사의 다양한 구조

수수료만 받는 재정 자문가는 고객의 이익을 우선시하겠다는 신탁 선서를 한 소수의 재정 자문가 중 일부입니다.

이러한 어드바이저는 시간당 요금, 고정 수수료 또는 관리 자산의 일정 비율을 통해 보상을 받을 수 있습니다.

시간당 어드바이저는 일반적으로 시간당 200~400달러를 청구하며, 특정 프로젝트에 초점을 맞춘 저렴한 솔루션을 제공하지만 고객과의 지속적인 관계가 부족할 수 있습니다.

비용 증가 없이 고객의 요구를 충족하는 것은 재무 설계사에게 불안감을 조성하고 확장성을 제한합니다.

리테이너 모델은 지속적인 관계와 고정 비용을 제공하므로 접근성이 높지만 포괄적인 서비스가 부족할 수 있습니다.

리테이너 수수료의 변동성과 고액 자산가 고객에 대한 집중은 리테이너 기반 모델의 단점입니다.

재정 고문 관리 리테이너 기반 및 자산 기반 모델

리테이너 기반 재무 설계사는 특정 업무와 서류 작업에 더 집중하면서 덜 실무적이고 포괄적인 서비스를 제공합니다.

또한 서비스의 질보다 고객 수를 우선시하는 인센티브가 있을 수 있습니다.

반면 자산 기반 어드바이저는 총 관리 포트폴리오의 일정 비율을 수수료로 부과하여 고객에 따라 인센티브를 조정하고 포트폴리오의 성과에 따라 보다 개인화된 서비스를 제공할 수 있습니다.

이 모델은 실질적인 접근 방식과 어드바이저와 고객 간의 직접적인 관계를 제공합니다.

재무 설계사는 리밸런싱, 세금 손실 회수, 소득세 신고서 검토를 도와주는 '화이트 글러브' 서비스를 제공합니다.

또한 성인 자녀와 부모를 위한 지원도 제공하여 보다 개인적이고 관계에 기반한 재무 지도를 제공합니다.

또한 자산 관리 모델은 고객의 포트폴리오가 성장함에 따라 유효 수수료가 감소하는 경우가 많기 때문에 시간이 지남에 따라 서비스의 비용 효율성이 더욱 높아집니다.

자산 관리 모델의 부정적인 측면

자산 고문은 순자산이 높은 개인에게 초점을 맞추기 때문에 다른 사람들에게는 높은 최소 자산 장벽을 만듭니다.

이러한 접근 방식은 일반 대중의 금융 교육 및 서비스에 대한 접근을 제한합니다.

이 시스템은 더 많은 사람들을 지원하고 교육할 기회를 소홀히 하면서 성공한 사람들에게만 풍요의 순환을 영속화합니다.