This is such an important topic! The complexity you describe with Ameriprise's 21-page compensation plan really highlights the transparency gap in traditional brokerage models. What's intresting is how Ameriprise has been trying to evolve—they've been shifting more toward fee-based accounts, but that legacy commission structure still creates potential conflicts of interest. The fact that clients often can't easily understand what they're paying (or what drives their advisor's recommendations) is exactly why the fiduciary vs. broker distinction matters so much. Thanks for shining a light on this!
Exactly — you captured it perfectly. The irony is that even as firms like Ameriprise move toward more fee-based models, they’re still bound by legacy compensation structures that blur the lines for clients. That’s why I’m so passionate about helping investors see the difference between “fee-based” and truly fee-only fiduciary advice — transparency shouldn’t require a 21-page disclosure.
This is such an important topic! The complexity you describe with Ameriprise's 21-page compensation plan really highlights the transparency gap in traditional brokerage models. What's intresting is how Ameriprise has been trying to evolve—they've been shifting more toward fee-based accounts, but that legacy commission structure still creates potential conflicts of interest. The fact that clients often can't easily understand what they're paying (or what drives their advisor's recommendations) is exactly why the fiduciary vs. broker distinction matters so much. Thanks for shining a light on this!
Exactly — you captured it perfectly. The irony is that even as firms like Ameriprise move toward more fee-based models, they’re still bound by legacy compensation structures that blur the lines for clients. That’s why I’m so passionate about helping investors see the difference between “fee-based” and truly fee-only fiduciary advice — transparency shouldn’t require a 21-page disclosure.