So as we move into part IX of our blog series, we hope are readers are getting the point. It isn’t that the firms that we have highlighted in this series are different then other “independent” broker dealers. It is that they are all the same. The dually registered investment advice world is conflicted by nature. Even though the advisor isn’t compensated differently, the recordkeepers and investment providers they are allowed to present have all paid for that access.
On Raymond James revenue sharing, you will see the usual list of suspects. These firms are granted additional access to IAR’s, additional marketing, and frequently additional revenue to the firm. Page three of eleven highlights the revenue sharing for Royal Alliance and page twenty two of twenty four highlights the revenue sharing for FSC.
So now that you have seen the evidence of additional conflicts for your advisor, what are the logical next steps? One would be to demand utilization & benchmarking which incorporates non-preferred partner firms. A second would be to demand an offset fee for your participants so the advisory fee is lowered dollar for dollar for any additional soft dollar compensation. The third and easiest solution would be to simply bypass this conflicted approach and work with an advisor that does not accept soft dollar compensation.