Mikesaver: "I’m still very skeptical about using commission-based advisors and the inherent conflict of interest involved. But your argument comparing long-term costs of fee-only and commission-based advisors is intriguing. Can you point me to an article or other resource that has studied this issue based on research on actual fees?"
---You don't need a research paper to figure this one out. As an example, you take a fee only who charges 1% of assets over a given time frame compared to a commission (A shares)where the "cost" is higher upfront, but lower over time.
$100,000 investment 10 year period
Fee only (1%) fee is $1,000 year (ofcourse this varies by actual value of investment, but I want to keep it simple)
10 year cost is $10,000
vs
Commission Only (5.75% upfront) {Be aware the load is not always 5.75% and it wouldn't be for $100,000 investment, but its an example }
Amortized cost over 10 years is .575%....less than the fee only (1%).
The math says commission is "cheaper"!
Now that I explained that scenario, its really meaningless in determining which type of planner to use. If you think that a fee only planner is too expensive, you have a lot more research to do.
The point is that a good financial planner that provides value is whats more important than commission vs fee. Valuable advice is not about "what's cheapest"
Use what makes you more comfortable, but don't try to make an opinion about what you prefer as a fact for everyone else.