[qmanjamz]

Most other industries are allowed to sell products that are contrary to their clients' interests. I don't see why wealth management should be any different. If my mechanic can try to sell me a bunch of services I don't really need every time I go in for an oil change, I have no problem with the financial industry doing the same.

[village-idiot]

The difference is that your mechanic isn’t acting as your agent with regards to all things automotive, they represent the shop they work for. That differentiation of who’s responsible for what makes a huge difference.

A financial advisor is much more akin to a lawyer, you pay them to represent your interests. And it is absolutely against the rules for your lawyer to not protect your best interests to the upmost extent of the law.

[jimmydddd]

Agreed. Standard lawyer jokes aside, I used to routinely advise clients against filing lawsuits which would have benfitted me and my firm financially. In many cases, it would have been a waste of time and money for the client. I'm surprised that financial advisors think it's acceptable to advise against a client's interests. Not surprised that they would do it, but surprised that they publically state that there is nothing wrong with it.

[village-idiot]

I think high finance has deluded itself into thinking that they’re irreplaceable, and therefore they don’t have to pay an ounce of attention to their public image. In minor cases they might be right, but I think they’re underestimating the risks of mass scale legislation or reorganization directly caused by their malfeasance.

[wbl]

Because weath managers don't clearly differentiate between their advisory and sales roles and exploit ignorant people. If the result was fee only advisors were the only ones left that would be a good thing

[inflatableDodo]

I view this more as the mechanic being paid by a supplier to say that your clutch has failed when it hasn't.