Ok, there's no problem with fee-for-service advisors. It's kind of noble, a journeyman's approach to the business. And it's the right fit… for a minority of clients.
The real issue is that there is a lot of talk about investment advisors, and whether the common reward structure – commissions, including trailing fees, offered at different rates, primarily from mutual funds – is in line with the client's best interests.
What do you think would happen to readership numbers if the New York Times went advertising-free, but started charging $8–10 per issue at the newsstand?
If financial advice were both optional and up-front-expensive, I believe – on average – we'd see the public's investing and savings behavior change for the worse.
Does the industry need to stricter and higher standards around conflict of interest, transparency, education and governance? Absolutely. Do clients need to be educated on how advisors make money and what to expect from them in return? Absolutely. But fee-for-service financial advice – while a noble idea – is very unlikely to benefit the public in either the short or long term.