How do financial advisors make money?

When you hire a financial advisor, you are not only choosing a person with expertise. You are also choosing the way advice is paid for, and that payment structure quietly shapes everything from the conversations you have to the recommendations you receive. Many people assume financial advice is “free” because they never see a bill. Others think every advisor charges the same tidy percentage. In reality, advisors make money through a few main models, and understanding them is one of the simplest ways to protect your long-term interests. At the center of the topic is incentives. An advisor can be honest, hardworking, and genuinely helpful, while still operating within a system that rewards certain behaviors. That is not a moral judgment. It is simply how financial services work. The key is to recognize what incentives are present so you can decide whether they fit what you need. In most cases, an advisor’s income comes from one of three sources: fees you pay directly, commissions tied to financial products, or compensation paid by an employer such as a bank or brokerage firm. Some advisors earn money through a mix of these sources, which is why clients often feel confused about what exactly they are paying for.

One of the most common payment methods today is the assets under management model, often called an AUM fee. Under this structure, the advisor charges a percentage of the assets they manage for you. The fee is usually billed quarterly and calculated based on the value of your portfolio at the time. Many clients like the AUM model because it feels straightforward. If your portfolio grows, the advisor earns more. If it falls, they earn less. On the surface, it can look aligned with your success.

Still, the AUM approach has trade-offs. Because the advisor’s income is tied to the amount of money they manage, the relationship can naturally revolve around investing and portfolio oversight. That can be exactly what you want if you need ongoing management, rebalancing, and structured support through market volatility. But it can also create subtle pressure to prioritize keeping assets invested under their supervision. If you decide to pay down debt aggressively, keep more cash for peace of mind, make a large down payment on a home, or fund a business venture, those moves can reduce the assets the advisor manages, even if the moves are smart for your broader life plan. A strong advisor will still discuss these options openly, but it helps to understand the incentive sitting underneath the relationship.

The second major category is fee-for-service, where you pay directly for advice rather than paying a percentage of assets. This can take the form of hourly billing, a fixed project fee, or an ongoing retainer. Hourly arrangements often work well when you have specific questions and do not need long-term portfolio management. You might use an hourly advisor to evaluate a retirement decision, sanity-check an investment strategy, review insurance coverage, or build a cash-flow plan that you can execute yourself.

Fixed project fees are similar, except the price is tied to a defined scope instead of the clock. Clients may pay for a comprehensive financial plan, a retirement readiness review, an investment portfolio analysis, or a decision-focused plan for major life changes. Retainers typically involve a recurring monthly or annual charge for continuing access, planning support, and periodic updates. For people with complex lives but not yet large investable portfolios, such as younger professionals, families balancing big expenses, or business owners reinvesting in growth, retainers can feel more equitable than AUM fees. Fee-for-service models can reduce some conflicts, but they do not eliminate the need to ask questions. The quality of “financial planning” varies widely. Two advisors may both offer a plan, but one might deliver a generic template while the other provides a tailored, deeply practical roadmap that considers risk tolerance, cash-flow resilience, insurance needs, taxes where applicable, and real-world decision-making. In other words, the payment model can tell you how the advisor earns, but it does not automatically tell you how good the advice will be.

The third major approach is commission-based compensation. In this model, the advisor is paid when you buy certain financial products. This often includes insurance policies, annuities, some mutual fund share classes, and structured investment products offered through financial institutions. Commissions can be paid upfront, paid over time, or structured as both. Upfront commissions tend to raise the most concern because they may encourage transactions rather than ongoing care. Ongoing commissions, sometimes referred to as trails, can create an incentive to keep you holding a product, even if better alternatives appear later. It is important to say this clearly: commission-based advice is not automatically bad. There are situations where commissions are common and even expected, particularly in insurance. The real issue is transparency. Product costs can be embedded in ways that are hard to see, such as in premiums, expense ratios, surrender charges, or spreads that are not obvious to clients reading glossy brochures. If you do not know how the advisor is paid, you can easily mistake product compensation for “free advice,” when the cost is simply hidden inside the product.

This is where the phrase “fee-based” adds confusion. Many people hear “fee-based” and assume it means the advisor only earns fees from the client. In practice, “fee-based” is often used to describe advisors who can charge client fees and also earn commissions. That structure is not necessarily unethical, but it increases the importance of clear disclosure. If an advisor can earn money in multiple ways, you should know exactly when each applies, how large it can be, and what alternatives exist. Beyond these headline categories, there are also indirect forms of compensation that matter. Some platforms and firms receive payments from product providers for distribution, marketing support, or placement on preferred lists. These arrangements can influence which funds are promoted, which products appear in model portfolios, and what options an advisor is encouraged to offer. Even when the advisor is not personally collecting a commission from your purchase, the institution may be benefiting in a way that shapes the menu of recommendations.

Many advisors also work as employees of banks or large financial firms. In those settings, they may receive a salary combined with bonuses or incentives tied to performance metrics such as assets brought in, products sold, or revenue generated. This does not mean the advisor cannot give good advice. It does mean the environment may reward product-driven behavior, and clients should be aware of that reality. A target-heavy culture can push the conversation toward measurable sales rather than slower, less profitable planning work like helping a client build sustainable habits, create a debt payoff strategy, or set realistic boundaries around lifestyle inflation.

Another factor clients often overlook is the cost of the investments themselves. Even if you pay an advisory fee, the funds and products in your portfolio may charge their own expenses. Trading strategies can also generate transaction costs. These expenses might be reasonable if they support a specific strategy or access to something you truly need. But in many cases, they simply increase total cost without improving outcomes. This is why it is useful to think in terms of total cost, not just the advisor’s stated fee. So what should you do with all of this information? The goal is not to hunt for a “perfect” compensation model. Every model comes with incentives and trade-offs. The goal is to choose the structure that fits the job you are hiring the advisor to do, and to make sure you can clearly explain how they are paid. If you cannot describe it in plain language, you do not fully understand the relationship yet, and that is a sign to slow down.

A practical way to approach the first conversation with any advisor is to ask about compensation early. You do not need to be confrontational. You can simply say you are comparing options and want to understand the fee schedule, any commissions or product-related compensation, and what services are included. A good advisor will answer calmly and clearly. They will also be able to explain what you get for that cost in terms of meetings, deliverables, ongoing access, and accountability. Just as important, listen to how they talk about conflicts of interest. The presence of a conflict is not the whole story. The maturity is in how it is managed. An advisor who can explain where incentives might pull in the wrong direction, and what safeguards they use, is often safer than someone who insists conflicts do not exist at all.

In the end, the question of how financial advisors make money is not a minor pricing detail. It is the architecture behind the advice. Once you understand that architecture, you can evaluate recommendations more confidently, compare advisors more fairly, and choose a relationship where the plan is not only professional, but also genuinely aligned with your life.