Broker pay reform would benefit investors, financial analysts say

Link compensation to investment outcomes, majority of CFA holders say in survey

Feb 20, 2014 @ 12:46 pm

By Trevor Hunnicutt

Firms that provide guidance to retail investors should link their executives' and brokers' pay to delivering good investment outcomes for their clients, according to a survey of securities analysts in North America.

A slight majority (54%) of 158 investment professionals who hold the chartered financial analyst designation said that they support reforming compensation structures at firms such as broker-dealers and insurance companies that offer their employees commissions or other financial inducements for selling investment products.

An even bigger majority of the analysts (68%) said that they support “mandating full disclosure of product cost structures to clients,” and about two-thirds said that they support a requirement that financial advisers disclose to clients all the commission payments that they receive.

They think that compensation reform would reduce the likelihood that clients are sold products at odds with their investment objectives.

But just 15% said that they would support an outright ban on commissions.

The CFA members were surveyed last May. Professionals who hold the CFA designation include analysts, asset managers and advisers.

The survey was released as part of a 68-page report by the CFA Institute, and it grapples in large part with issues outside the United States. Regulators in Australia and the United Kingdom have restricted or banned commission payments for advisers in recent years, while other countries have opted to increase compensation disclosures.

The CFA Institute has championed the latter approach, warning that outright bans on commissions could restrict the product choice and financial advice available to less-wealthy investors.

In the United States, by contrast, advisers have increasingly shifted to fee-based and even fee-only service models in the past decade despite faltering efforts to address the vast discrepancy between how different kind of advisers are regulated.

Nearly six in 10 advisers earned most of their revenue from fees last year, up from 41% in 2004, according to research firm Cerulli Associates Inc.

The number of fee-only advisers doubled in the same period, they said.

“If an industry doesn't self-regulate well, there will be regulation imposed on it, so I think it behooves the industry in the U.S. to regulate itself,” said Matthew M. Orsagh, director of capital markets policy for the CFA Institute and an author of the report. “In most every case it's better for the market to regulate itself.”

But the CFA Institute report acknowledged that a shift to fee-based models risks discouraging consumers from using advisers, as many view commission-based models as “free” and “disclosure of conflicts of interest can lead to a loss of trust among consumers.”

“The average retail investor may be predisposed to be averse to upfront fees paid to advisers,” according to the report. “So, either approach — commission ban or more transparency — is imperfect.”

The Financial Services Institute Inc., an advocacy group that represents independent broker-dealers, declined to comment through a spokesman, Christopher J. Paulitz.

A spokeswoman for the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association declined to comment.


What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video


Why some retirement plan advisers think Fidelity is invading their turf

InvestmentNews editor Frederick P. Gabriel Jr. and reporter Greg Iacurci talk about this week's cover story that looks at whether Fidelity Investments is stepping on the toes of retirement plan advisers.

Latest news & opinion

Is Fidelity competing with retirement plan advisers?

As the Boston-based mutual fund giant expands the products and services it brings to the retirement market, some financial advisers say the firm is encroaching on their turf.

Gun violence hits investment strategies, sparks political debates with advisers

Screening out weapons companies has limited downside.

Social Security underpaid 82% of dually entitled widows and widowers

Agency failed to tell survivors that they could switch to a higher retirement benefit later.

If Finra eases firm oversight of outside business activities, broker-dealers could lose revenue

Brokerage firms would no longer be able to charge reps for supervising nonaffiliated RIAs.

Galvin charges Scottrade with DOL fiduciary rule violations

Action of Massachusetts' top regulator shows states can put teeth into a rule under review by the Trump administration.


Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.


Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print