The Advisor’s Oath: Why I Left Wall Street’s Sales Culture to Build a Practice on Trust

By [Narrator’s Name], a 15-year veteran of the financial advisory world.

Part I: The Crisis of Conscience – A System of Conflicting Interests

A. Introduction: The Weight of a “Suitable” Recommendation

For the first few years of my career, I believed I had one of the best jobs in the world.

I was a financial advisor at a large, respected brokerage firm, and I saw myself as a guide, helping people navigate the complex terrain of their financial lives.

I sat across the table from young families saving for college, entrepreneurs building their businesses, and couples nearing a long-awaited retirement.

I listened to their hopes and their fears, and I genuinely wanted to help them succeed.

There was a purity to that initial mission that fueled me.

But over time, a subtle yet persistent unease began to creep in.

It was a quiet dissonance at first, a feeling I couldn’t quite name.

It was the pressure during morning sales meetings, the emphasis on certain “products of the month,” the unspoken hierarchy that celebrated top salespeople over thoughtful planners.

I started to feel a growing chasm between my role as it was defined by my firm and the role I believed my clients needed me to play.

I was an advisor, but I was compensated like a salesperson.

And in that fundamental conflict lies a world of compromise.

The source of this conflict, the very thing that made my position ethically tenable in the eyes of the industry, was a concept known as the “suitability” standard.

This standard, primarily enforced by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), dictates that a broker’s recommendation must be “suitable” for a client based on factors like their age, financial situation, and risk tolerance.¹

On the surface, this sounds reasonable.

Who would want an

unsuitable recommendation? But the devil is in what the standard doesn’t require.

It does not require the advice to be in the client’s absolute best interest.³

This distinction is not merely semantic; it is a canyon of difference.

A “suitable” recommendation can be one of five different mutual funds, all of which fit a client’s profile.

But what if one of those funds pays me, the advisor, a significantly higher commission? What if one is a proprietary fund that generates more revenue for my firm? Under the suitability standard, I am not prohibited from recommending the more expensive, more profitable option, as long as it’s still deemed “suitable”.⁵

My interests, and my firm’s interests, are allowed to be part of the equation.

This created a constant, low-grade ethical hum in the background of my work.

Every recommendation came with a silent calculation: Is this truly the best possible choice for this person, or is it simply the best choice for me that I can justify as “suitable”? I was working within a system that didn’t just tolerate conflicts of interest; it was built upon them.⁷

This wasn’t a matter of a few “bad apples” in the industry; it was a systemic issue.

The very architecture of the broker-dealer model, which combines advice with product sales, creates a powerful incentive for the advisor to maximize their own compensation.⁷

The suitability standard, in essence, provides the regulatory cover for this inherent conflict to persist.⁴

It places even the most well-intentioned advisor in a position of constant ethical tension.

Over years, this weight became unbearable.

I realized that my professional success was often directly at odds with the financial success of the very people who had placed their trust in me.

It was a crisis of conscience that would ultimately force me to re-evaluate everything I thought I knew about my profession.

B. A Regret I Can’t Forget: The Proprietary Fund Failure

There is one client story that, more than any other, crystallized the deep-seated problem with the system I was in.

It’s a story I carry with me as a constant reminder of the real-world cost of “suitable” advice.

Let’s call them the Hendersons.

They were a wonderful couple in their late 50s, both teachers who had diligently saved their entire lives.

They came to me with a simple, heartfelt goal: to ensure they had enough to retire comfortably and perhaps leave a small legacy for their grandchildren.

They weren’t looking to get rich quick; they were looking for security and peace of mind.

They trusted me to provide it.

At the time, my firm was heavily promoting a new suite of proprietary mutual funds.

These were funds managed by our own company, and the internal pressure to place clients in them was immense.

There were sales quotas, leaderboards, and, of course, a more generous commission structure for selling in-house products compared to third-party funds.⁹

This is a classic conflict of interest in the brokerage world: the firm has a direct financial incentive for its advisors to recommend products that are most profitable for the firm, not necessarily for the client.⁷

I ran the analysis for the Hendersons.

Our proprietary “Balanced Growth & Income Fund” was, on paper, a perfect fit.

Its risk profile matched their moderate tolerance, and its objectives aligned with their long-term goals.

It was, without question, a “suitable” investment according to FINRA Rule 2111.²

But I knew, with a certainty that gnawed at me, that it wasn’t the

best option.

I was aware of several non-proprietary funds from other companies that had similar risk profiles but consistently better performance track records and, most importantly, lower expense ratios.

Recommending one of those, however, would mean a smaller commission for me and would do nothing to help me meet the firm’s implicit quota for proprietary fund sales.

Caught between my duty to the Hendersons and the pressures of my firm, I made the “suitable” choice.

I walked them through the prospectus of our proprietary fund, highlighted its features, and they, trusting my judgment, agreed.

I earned a good commission, and my manager was pleased.

For a few years, everything seemed fine.

The market was generally rising, and their statements showed positive growth.

But the real test of advice isn’t a bull market; it’s time.

About five years later, I was doing a deep review of their portfolio.

I ran a comparison against the very funds I had considered—but dismissed—years earlier.

The result turned my stomach.

The Hendersons’ portfolio had underperformed the benchmark of those lower-cost, independent funds by a significant margin.

It wasn’t a catastrophic loss, but it was a clear and undeniable opportunity cost.

Compounded over what would be a 20- or 30-year retirement, the difference would amount to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars.

It was money they had earned and saved, money that should have been working for them as efficiently as possible, but was instead being eroded by slightly higher fees and slightly weaker performance.

This wasn’t fraud.

It wasn’t even a violation of the rules that governed me.

It was simply the perfectly legal, entirely “suitable” consequence of a system designed to serve the firm first.

The harm to the Hendersons wasn’t a single, dramatic event, but a slow, quiet bleed—a death by a thousand small cuts.

This insidious nature is perhaps the greatest danger of the suitability standard.

It doesn’t just allow for bad outcomes; it normalizes suboptimal ones.

Over time, the constant exposure to these conflicts can desensitize an advisor.

The initial ethical dilemma of choosing a higher-commission fund fades into the background, becoming just “part of the job.” The harm to the client, spread out over decades in the form of basis points and fractional percentages, becomes abstract and easy to ignore.

But for the Hendersons, that abstract harm was real.

It was a less secure retirement, a smaller legacy for their family.

And for me, it was a profound and lasting regret that became the catalyst for change.

Part II: The Fiduciary Epiphany – A New Paradigm for Advice

A. The Unlikely Mentor: How a Lawyer’s Code Changed My Life

My journey out of that ethical fog didn’t begin in a Wall Street boardroom or a financial industry seminar.

It began, unexpectedly, over coffee with a friend who was a lawyer.

As I was vaguely describing the professional angst I was feeling—the sense of being caught between my clients’ needs and my firm’s demands—she listened patiently.

Then she said something that would fundamentally alter the course of my career.

“It sounds like you’re struggling with your fiduciary duty,” she said.

I had heard the term “fiduciary” before, but in the context of finance, it was often used loosely, more as a marketing buzzword than a hard-and-fast rule.

My friend, however, explained it from the perspective of legal ethics, and it was like a light turning on in a dark room.

She described how certain professions—law, medicine, trusteeship—are governed by a sacred and legally binding principle known as fiduciary duty.¹³

The word itself, she explained, comes from the Latin

fiducia, meaning “trust” or “confidence”.¹⁵

A fiduciary, she said, is someone who has a legal and ethical obligation to act solely in the best interest of another party.¹³

This isn’t a guideline; it’s a mandate.

It’s not about finding a “suitable” path; it’s about finding the

best path.

She broke it down into two core components that are central to legal and corporate ethics:

1. The Duty of Loyalty: This requires the fiduciary to place the interests of their client (the “principal” or “beneficiary”) above all others, including their own.¹⁴ It means they cannot use their position of trust to further their own private interests. Any potential conflict of interest must be avoided or, at the very least, fully disclosed so the client can give informed consent.¹⁸
2. The Duty of Care: This requires the fiduciary to act with the competence, diligence, skill, and prudence that a reasonable professional would exercise in managing their own affairs.¹⁴ It involves thorough research, critical analysis, and a commitment to providing advice based on all reasonably available information.¹⁴

Listening to her, I felt a profound sense of clarity.

This was it.

This was the standard I had been yearning for.

The problem wasn’t that I was a bad person working in a good system; it was that I was a person trying to act like a fiduciary within a system that was built on a foundation of sales.

The broker-dealer model, with its suitability standard, was fundamentally transactional.

It applied to a specific recommendation at a specific moment in time, allowing the advisor’s and the firm’s interests to coexist with the client’s.⁶

The fiduciary standard, in contrast, is fundamentally relational.

It arises from a position of trust and confidence, where one party holds power and influence over the other.¹⁴

The obligation isn’t just to the transaction; it’s to the person.

It’s a continuous, holistic commitment to being a guardian of their financial well-being.

This was my epiphany.

I realized that true financial advice shouldn’t be a commercial transaction governed by the “morals of the market place,” as one famous judge put it.¹⁸

It should be a professional relationship of profound trust, like that between a doctor and a patient or a lawyer and their client, governed by a fiduciary oath.

This wasn’t just a better rule; it was a completely new paradigm.

It reframed my entire understanding of the industry and gave me a clear path forward.

I knew I had to leave the world of “suitability” behind and build a practice on the bedrock of fiduciary duty.

I had to stop being a salesperson and start being an advocate.

This realization also highlighted a crucial distinction for investors.

In the broker-dealer world, words like “trust,” “partnership,” and “we put your interests first” are ubiquitous.

They are powerful marketing tools.

But for an advisor operating under the suitability standard, these are aspirational claims, not legal obligations.³

In the fiduciary world, however, “trust” isn’t a slogan; it’s the law.

A Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) held to a fiduciary standard under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 has a legally enforceable duty to uphold that trust.¹

A breach isn’t just bad service; it’s a violation of the law with real consequences.¹⁴

My epiphany was about understanding this difference—the difference between a business model built on the

language of trust and one built on the law of trust.

And I knew which side I had to be on.

Part III: The Three Pillars of a Fiduciary Practice

My decision to leave the brokerage world and embrace the fiduciary standard wasn’t just a philosophical shift; it required me to adopt a completely new business architecture.

I chose to become an independent Registered Investment Advisor (RIA).

This model, I discovered, is structurally designed to support the core tenets of fiduciary duty.

It’s not just an ethical choice; it’s a superior framework for delivering complex, personalized advice.

The entire system is built on three pillars that directly correspond to the duties I had learned about from my lawyer friend: the Duty of Loyalty, the Duty of Care, and the Duty of Transparency.

A. Pillar 1: The Duty of Undivided Loyalty – Eliminating the Conflict

The Duty of Loyalty, at its core, demands that an advisor put their client’s interests first, always and without exception.¹⁴

This is the pillar that directly addresses the central problem I faced in the broker-dealer model: the rampant and institutionalized conflicts of interest.

In the traditional brokerage world, these conflicts are not bugs in the system; they are features.

They are woven into the very fabric of how the business operates.⁷

The most obvious conflict is commission-based compensation.

When an advisor is paid a commission for selling a specific stock, bond, or mutual fund, their income is directly tied to transactions, not to the quality of their advice.³

This creates a powerful incentive to “churn” accounts (engage in excessive trading to generate commissions) or to recommend products that pay higher commissions, regardless of whether they are the best fit.¹⁹

FINRA disciplinary actions are filled with cases of brokers recommending products specifically to maximize their own commissions.¹⁹

This primary conflict spawns many others.

Broker-dealers often create and push their own proprietary products, which may carry higher fees and benefit the firm’s bottom line more than a competitor’s product.¹¹

They engage in “revenue sharing” agreements, where fund companies pay the brokerage firm to get their products on a “preferred list,” creating an incentive for the firm’s advisors to recommend those funds.⁷

They run sales contests and set quotas for specific types of securities, further pressuring advisors to prioritize the firm’s agenda over the client’s needs.⁹

All these practices are designed to maximize revenue for the firm and its representatives, and they fundamentally compromise the advisor’s ability to provide objective advice.⁸

The independent RIA model, governed by the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, attacks these conflicts at their structural roots.¹

First and foremost, RIAs are legally held to the fiduciary standard, which requires them to act with undivided loyalty to the client.²⁵

To ensure this loyalty is not compromised, most independent RIAs adopt a “fee-only” compensation model.

This means the advisor is compensated directly by the client, typically through a transparent fee based on a percentage of assets under management (AUM), a flat retainer, or an hourly rate.²⁷

This fee-only structure is revolutionary because it severs the link between compensation and product sales.

My income is no longer dependent on which fund I recommend or how many trades I make.

Instead, my success is directly aligned with my client’s success.

If their portfolio grows, my compensation (as a percentage of AUM) grows.

If it shrinks, my compensation shrinks.

This simple alignment of interests is the most powerful way to eliminate the conflicts of interest that plagued my old career.²⁹

I am no longer incentivized to sell anything.

I am incentivized to provide the best possible advice to grow and protect my client’s wealth over the long term.

This fundamental difference in business models is the single most important distinction for an investor to understand.

The following table breaks it down clearly:

Feature	Broker-Dealer	Independent RIA
Primary Standard of Conduct	Suitability: Recommendations must be suitable, but not necessarily in the client’s absolute best interest.1	Fiduciary: Legally obligated to act solely in the client’s best interest at all times.3
Primary Regulator	FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority), a self-regulatory organization.1	SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) or State Securities Regulators.1
Governing Law	Securities Exchange Act of 1934.21	Investment Advisers Act of 1940.21
Typical Compensation	Commission-based: Paid for transactions. Also includes 12b-1 fees, revenue sharing, and other sales-related incentives.3	Fee-Only: Paid directly by the client via a percentage of assets, a flat fee, or an hourly rate. No commissions.1
Product Access	Often limited to a list of “approved” products or the firm’s own proprietary funds, creating potential conflicts.11	Open access to the entire universe of investment options. The advisor is free to choose the best-in-class products for the client.11
Primary Allegiance	To the employing brokerage firm. The advisor is a “registered representative” of the firm.4	To the client. The advisor’s legal and ethical duty of loyalty is directly to the person they are advising.25

B. Pillar 2: The Duty of Care & Prudence – From Product-Pusher to Problem-Solver

The second pillar, the Duty of Care, mandates that a fiduciary act with the skill, diligence, and prudence of a professional in their field.¹⁴

This duty transformed my role from that of a product-pusher to a comprehensive problem-solver.

In the brokerage world, the process was often backward.

The firm had products to sell, and my job was to find clients for whom those products were “suitable.” The focus was on the transaction, not the holistic picture.

This often leads to fragmented advice, where a client might have a suitable retirement account, a suitable college savings plan, and a suitable insurance policy, but no overarching strategy that integrates them in the most tax-efficient and effective Way.¹²

The Duty of Care under the fiduciary standard demands the opposite approach.

It requires me to start with the client—their entire financial life, their goals, their values, their fears—and then conduct thorough due diligence to find the best possible solutions from the entire marketplace.¹¹

This means I am not just an investment manager; I am a financial quarterback, coordinating all aspects of my client’s financial life, from tax planning and estate considerations to risk management and cash flow analysis.¹²

The business model of an independent RIA is architected for this kind of deep, customized service, not for the mass distribution of a limited set of products.

It is structurally superior for delivering the complex, personalized advice that many families need.

My own “success story,” the one that serves as a direct counterpoint to the failure with the Hendersons, perfectly illustrates this pillar in action.

A few years after starting my independent RIA practice, a new client, Emily, came to me with a $75,000 inheritance.

She was 45 and wanted to invest the money for a down payment on a retirement home in about 15 years.

As an independent fiduciary, I had access to the entire universe of mutual funds, not just a pre-approved list.

I identified a fund family that I believed was an excellent match for her long-term growth objective and moderate risk tolerance.

This fund family, like many, offered different share classes.

The two most common were A-shares and C-shares.³¹

• C-Shares: These had no upfront sales charge (no “load”), which sounds attractive. However, they carried a high annual “12b-1 fee” of 1%. This fee is an ongoing marketing and distribution expense that comes directly out of the fund’s assets, reducing the client’s return every single year they hold the fund.³¹
• A-Shares: These had a one-time upfront sales charge of 4% ($3,000 on her $75,000 investment). However, their ongoing 12b-1 fee was only 0.25% per year.³¹

A commission-driven advisor might be tempted to recommend the C-shares.

The lack of an upfront fee makes them an easier “sell,” and the higher ongoing 12b-1 fee can provide a steady stream of trail commissions to the advisor.

It would be a “suitable” recommendation.

But my Duty of Care required me to do the math and act with prudence on Emily’s behalf.

I ran a simple projection.

Over a 15-year time horizon, the high ongoing 1% fee on the C-shares would cost her far more than the one-time 4% fee on the A-shares.

The break-even point was only a few years O.T. By choosing the A-shares, despite the initial bite of the sales load, Emily’s net return over the 15 years would be substantially higher.

I explained this analysis to her clearly and transparently.

I recommended the A-shares because, while it meant a lower ongoing compensation stream for my firm compared to the C-shares, it was unequivocally the better long-term decision for her.

This is the Duty of Care in its purest form.

It’s about rigorous analysis, putting the client’s long-term outcome first, and having the independence to make the right recommendation without the distorting influence of conflicting compensation structures.

It was the kind of advice I wish I could have given the Hendersons.

C. Pillar 3: The Duty of Transparency & Disclosure – A System of Checks and Balances

The final pillar of a fiduciary practice is the duty of transparency and full disclosure.

A fiduciary must be candid about all material facts, including any potential conflicts of interest.³

This stands in stark contrast to the opacity that can often characterize the traditional brokerage model, where complex fee structures and bundled services can obscure the true cost of advice.³⁰

The independent RIA model has two critical structural features that hardwire this transparency into the relationship.

First, as discussed, is the transparent, fee-only compensation structure.

My clients receive a clear statement showing exactly what they are paying for my advisory services.

There are no hidden commissions, no confusing 12b-1 fees buried in a prospectus, no revenue-sharing agreements that they don’t know about.¹¹

This simple act of unbundling the cost of advice from the cost of the investment products is a powerfully pro-consumer innovation.

It allows clients to see what they are paying for and judge whether the value they receive is worth the fee.

This trend represents a fundamental disruption in the financial services industry, moving the focus from selling profitable products to providing valuable, high-quality advice.²⁸

Second, and perhaps even more important, is the use of an independent custodian.

As an independent RIA, I never take direct possession of my clients’ money.

Instead, their assets are held at a separate, large, and reputable financial institution known as a custodian—firms like Charles Schwab, Fidelity, or Pershing.²⁹

This arrangement creates a crucial system of checks and balances that protects the client.

The custodian is responsible for safeguarding the assets, executing trades, and providing independent reporting.

This means my clients receive two sets of statements: one from my firm detailing our advisory work and performance, and another directly from the independent custodian (e.g., Charles Schwab) showing all account activity, holdings, and balances.²⁹

This separation of duties makes it virtually impossible for an advisor to misrepresent performance or misappropriate funds.

It provides a level of security and transparency that simply doesn’t exist when an advisor’s firm is also the one holding the money.

It’s the ultimate backstop, ensuring that the trust a client places in me is reinforced by a robust and independent institutional structure.

These three pillars—undivided loyalty through a fee-only structure, diligent care through holistic and independent advice, and unwavering transparency through independent custody—are not just abstract ideals.

They are the functional, architectural components of the modern, independent wealth management firm.

They are the reason why this model is the fastest-growing segment of the financial services industry and why it consistently earns the highest marks for client satisfaction.³³

It is a system built not for sales, but for service.

Part IV: Choosing Your Advocate – A Practical Guide for Investors

A. Putting the Paradigm to Work: Five Questions to Ask Your Advisor

My journey from a commission-based broker to a fee-only fiduciary taught me that the single most important factor in a financial advisory relationship is its underlying structure.

The advisor’s philosophy, credentials, and personality all matter, but they are secondary to the legal standard they uphold and the way they are compensated.

The system they work within will ultimately have more influence on the quality of advice you receive than their individual intentions.

Therefore, choosing an advisor isn’t about finding someone you like; it’s about finding a true advocate for your financial life.

To do that, you need to ask the right questions—questions that cut through the marketing jargon and reveal the fundamental nature of the practice.

Here are the five questions I wish I could have given every client, and the ones I now encourage every investor to ask:

1. “Are you a fiduciary, and will you state that in writing?”

This is the most important question you can ask.

A true fiduciary will answer “yes” without hesitation.6 A broker, or someone operating under a “dual registration” that allows them to be a fiduciary sometimes and a salesperson at other times, may give a qualified or confusing answer.

The key is the second part of the question: “Will you state that in writing?” An advisor who is truly committed to the fiduciary standard should be willing to sign a simple statement affirming that they will act as your fiduciary in all aspects of your relationship.

This simple request separates the talkers from the walkers.

2. “How are you compensated?”

This question uncovers the potential for conflicts of interest.34 You are listening for specific terms.

• “Fee-Only”: This is the gold standard for fiduciary advice. It means the advisor is paid only by you, the client, through transparent fees. They receive no commissions, kickbacks, or payments from third parties for selling certain products.²⁷
• “Fee-Based”: This term sounds similar but is critically different. “Fee-based” (or a hybrid model) means the advisor can charge you fees and also receive commissions from selling products like insurance or annuities.³² This reintroduces the very conflicts of interest you want to avoid.
• “Commission”: If the answer involves commissions, you are talking to a salesperson, not a fiduciary advisor. Their primary role is to sell financial products on behalf of their firm.⁴

3. “What are your qualifications, and what do they mean?”

Credentials can be a good indicator of an advisor’s commitment to professionalism and ethics.

Look for designations that require adherence to a fiduciary standard.35

• CFP® (Certified Financial Planner™): Holders of this designation are required to act as a fiduciary when providing financial advice to a client.⁶ They have completed extensive training in all areas of financial planning.
• CFA® (Chartered Financial Analyst®): This is one of the most rigorous designations in the investment management profession, and its holders are also bound by a strict code of ethics that requires them to put their clients’ interests first.⁶
  
  Be wary of a long list of obscure acronyms that may sound impressive but lack rigorous ethical or educational requirements.

4. “What is your investment philosophy, and what products can you offer?”

This question helps you understand both the advisor’s approach and their potential limitations.

An independent RIA will typically describe a philosophy based on diversification, asset allocation, and low costs, and will confirm they have access to the entire universe of investment products to find the best fit for you.11 An advisor at a large brokerage or insurance company may be limited to recommending only their firm’s proprietary products or a small, pre-approved list, which is a significant red flag.12

5. “Where will my money be held?”

This is the crucial question about structural safety.

The correct answer should be, “Your assets will be held by a large, independent, third-party custodian, such as Charles Schwab, Fidelity, or another major institution”.29 This ensures the system of checks and balances is in place.

If the advisor’s own firm holds the assets, that critical layer of independent oversight is missing.

Asking these five questions will empower you to look past the surface and understand the fundamental structure of an advisor’s practice.

It will allow you to determine if you are hiring a salesperson or retaining a true fiduciary advocate.

B. The Proof is in the Partnership: A Conclusion

Looking back on my 15-year journey, the contrast between my two professional lives could not be starker.

My years as a broker were defined by a constant, nagging conflict and transactional relationships.

Success was measured in sales figures and commissions.

My life now as an independent, fee-only fiduciary is defined by deep, trust-based partnerships.

Success is measured by my clients’ peace of mind and their progress toward the goals we set together.

The relief of being able to give every client, every single time, the advice that I know is in their absolute best interest is a professional satisfaction I never thought possible.

My personal experience is reflected in broader industry trends.

The independent RIA model is the fastest-growing channel in wealth management, with assets growing at a 12% annual rate since 2016, far outpacing traditional models.³³

This growth is not driven by a massive advertising push, but by two powerful forces: advisors like me seeking a better way to serve clients, and investors voting with their feet.

Studies show that RIAs enjoy the highest customer satisfaction of any wealth management model, and advisors who go independent retain, on average, 70% to 90% of their clients’ assets—a testament to the loyalty that a true fiduciary relationship inspires.³³

Choosing a financial advisor is one of the most consequential decisions you will make for your family’s future.

It is a decision that deserves diligence and clarity.

The financial world is complex and filled with competing interests.

But by understanding the fundamental difference between a salesperson held to a “suitability” standard and a true advisor bound by a fiduciary oath, you can arm yourself with the knowledge to make the right choice.

Demand more than a “suitable” outcome.

Demand an advocate.

Demand a partner whose success is inextricably linked to your own.

Demand an advisor who will willingly and proudly take the Fiduciary Oath to act in your best interest, always.

It is the standard of care you deserve, and it is the foundation upon which true financial peace of mind is built.

Works cited

1. BD vs. RIA: Navigating compliance requirements – InvestmentNews, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.investmentnews.com/goria/compliance/bd-vs-ria-navigating-compliance-requirements/258420
2. Suitability | FINRA.org, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/suitability
3. RIA vs Broker Dealer: What You Need to Know – SmartAsset.com, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/ria-vs-broker-dealer
4. Suitability vs. Fiduciary Standards: What’s the Difference?, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/professionaleducation/11/suitability-fiduciary-standards.asp
5. Broker-Dealers vs. RIAs: What’s the Difference? – Investopedia, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/100915/rias-and-independent-brokerdealers-comparison.asp
6. Fiduciary Duty vs. Suitability Standards – SmartAsset.com, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/fiduciary-vs-suitability
7. A Framework for Addressing Broker-Dealer and Investment Adviser Conflicts of Interest When Providing Retail Investment Advice, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://consumerfed.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/CFA-Conflict-of-Interest-Framework.pdf
8. Conflicts of Interest: Securities broker-dealers – 03/10/2025 – Fund Board Views, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://fundboardviews.com/Content_Free/Viewpoints-conflicts-interest-broker-dealers-Buddy-Donohue.aspx
9. Staff Bulletin: Standards of Conduct for Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers Conflicts of Interest – SEC.gov, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/division-trading-markets/broker-dealers/staff-bulletin-standards-conduct-broker-dealers-investment-advisers-conflicts-interest
10. 2111. Suitability | FINRA.org, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/rulebooks/finra-rules/2111
11. 7 Benefits of Hiring an Independent Financial Advisor – SmartAsset.com, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/benefits-of-independent-financial-advisor
12. 10 Mistakes People Make When Hiring and Working With Financial Advisors, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://carverfinancialservices.com/10-mistakes-people-make-when-hiring-and-working-with-financial-advisors/
13. ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/fiduciary-duty#:~:text=A%20fiduciary%20duty%20is%20the,best%20interest%20of%20their%20clients.
14. fiduciary duty | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty
15. Fiduciary Duty – Ethics Unwrapped, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/fiduciary-duty
16. Fiduciary Duty | Ethics Defined – YouTube, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNoKMffph3o
17. What Is a Fiduciary Duty? Examples and Types Explained – Investopedia, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042915/what-are-some-examples-fiduciary-duty.asp
18. Understanding Fiduciary Duty – The Florida Bar, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/understanding-fiduciary-duty/
19. FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) FAQ | FINRA.org, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/suitability/faq
20. Suitability vs Fiduciary – Hightower Fort Myers, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://fortmyers.hightoweradvisors.com/suitability-vs-fiduciary.html
21. RIAs vs. Broker-Dealers: Key Differences and Examples – InnReg, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.innreg.com/blog/ria-vs-broker-dealer-differences
22. Conflicts of Interest | FINRA.org, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/conflicts-of-interest
23. Broker-Dealer vs. Investment Adviser – Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://ndbf.nebraska.gov/industries/securities/broker-dealer-vs-investment-adviser
24. Disciplinary and Other FINRA Actions, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/disciplinary-actions-february-2025.pdf
25. Suitability Rule vs Fiduciary Duty – Wealthline Financial Advisors, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.wealthlinefinancial.com/suitability-rule-vs-fiduciary-duty
26. Eight Reasons Working With An Independent RIA Is A Great Choice For Private Clients, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://brandywineoak.com/eight-reasons-working-with-an-independent-ria-is-a-great-choice-for-private-clients/
27. Registered Investment Advisors | Why Work with a RIA – Carnegie Investment Counsel, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.carnegieinvest.com/why-work-with-a-ria.html
28. Top 5 Reasons Why Advisors Go RIA – Investopedia, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-advisors/062315/top-reasons-why-advisors-should-go-ria.asp
29. Five Key Benefits of Independent Financial Advisors | Find Your …, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.findyourindependentadvisor.com/insightsandeducation/Five-Key-Benefits-of-Independent-Financial-Advisors
30. Fiduciary Standard vs. Suitability Standard? | Sandy Spring Bank, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.sandyspringbank.com/wealth/news/financial-planning/fiduciary-standard-vs-suitability-standard
31. The Fiduciary Duty and an A Share Class Recommendation | CFP …, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.cfp.net/ethics/compliance-resources/2019/11/the-fiduciary-duty-and-an-a-share-class-recommendation
32. What You Need To Know About Fee-Only Financial Advisors – Investopedia, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/102014/feeonly-financial-advisers-what-you-need-know.asp
33. Registered investment advisors: How US banks can weigh the M&A …, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/registered-investment-advisors-how-us-banks-can-weigh-the-m-and-a-potential
34. A Practical Guide to Choosing the Right Financial Advisor for You, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.epwealth.com/blog/finding-the-right-financial-adviser
35. 5 Factors to Consider When Choosing a Financial Advisor – Andover Bank, accessed on August 8, 2025, https://www.andover.bank/Resources/Our-Bank/News/5-factors-to-consider-when-choosing-a-financial-advisor-1