
How To Find The Right Financial Advisor — 10 Key Questions To Ask
How to choose the right financial advisor
When it comes to managing your money, few decisions carry more weight than choosing the right financial advisor. This person will not only guide your investment strategies, tax planning, and retirement savings, but also play a pivotal role in shaping your long-term financial well-being. If the signs say it's time to consult one, this article discusses ten essential questions to help you evaluate a potential advisor's qualifications, integrity, and fit for your unique situation. Each question is designed to give you clarity, confidence, and control in your selection process.
The first and most critical question you should ask any prospective advisor is whether they are a fiduciary. Simply put, fiduciaries are legally bound to act in your best interests, which means putting your needs ahead of their own or their firm's, even if it results in less compensation for them.
Remember, not all advisors are fiduciaries. Some operate under the suitability standard, which only requires that the advice they offer is 'suitable' and not necessarily the best possible recommendation. The distinction may seem subtle, but it can have profound implications. Advisors who are not fiduciaries may be incentivized to recommend products that pay them higher commissions, even when better or more cost-effective alternatives are available.
Ask this question upfront to help you filter out professionals who may not prioritize your best interests. Clarify whether the advisor is a fiduciary at all times and in all aspects of your financial relationship. Request a written acknowledgment of this commitment. A true fiduciary will not hesitate to affirm their status and may even welcome the question as evidence of your diligence. Their willingness to be held to the highest legal and ethical standard should inspire confidence and set the foundation for a transparent, long-term partnership.
Credentials matter in financial advising because they reflect a level of competence, ethical commitment, and ongoing education. Look for respected certifications like Certified Financial Planner (CFP), Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA), or Certified Public Accountant (CPA). Each carries its own scope and expertise.
A CFP, for instance, must meet rigorous education and experience requirements and adhere to a strict code of ethics. A CFA brings deep investment management expertise. A CPA adds tax planning insight. Understanding what each credential brings to the table can help you identify the advisor best suited to your specific needs.
Do not hesitate to ask about educational background, years in practice, and any relevant specialties.
Compensation structures can significantly influence the recommendations you receive, so transparency in this area is non-negotiable. Advisors may be paid through a fee-only model, where they receive a flat fee, an hourly rate, or a percentage of assets under management. Others operate on a commission-based system, earning money from the financial products they sell, such as mutual funds, insurance policies, or annuities. A third category, known as fee-based advisors, blends both approaches, charging a combination of direct fees and product-based commissions.
Why does this matter? Because the way an advisor is paid can introduce potential conflicts of interest. For example, a fee-only advisor is generally seen as having fewer such conflicts, as they do not receive compensation for steering you toward particular financial products. Commission-based advisors, on the other hand, might be incentivized to recommend products that offer them the highest payouts, regardless of whether those options are the most cost-effective or strategically sound for you.
When interviewing a prospective advisor, request a comprehensive explanation of their compensation model. Ask about all potential fees, including advisory fees, fund expense ratios, transaction costs, and other embedded charges. Their response will reveal how they earn a living and the extent to which they prioritize your financial interests over their own incentives.
Financial advisors vary widely in the services they offer. Some focus solely on investment management, while others provide comprehensive financial planning, including retirement, estate, tax, insurance, and education planning.
You want an advisor whose services align with your needs. If you're a young professional, you may need help with student loan repayment strategies and wealth accumulation. If you're nearing retirement, income planning and tax optimization might be your priority.
You must clarify what specific services are included, and whether the advisor will coordinate with your other professionals, such as CPAs or estate attorneys.
It is important to determine whether your financial needs and life circumstances align with those of the advisor's existing clientele. An advisor who routinely works with clients in similar circumstances is more likely to understand your challenges and opportunities. They can offer nuanced advice, anticipate issues, and apply proven strategies that have worked for others in your position.
For example, an advisor who regularly counsels clients on retirement income planning will be attuned to the nuances of Social Security timing, tax-efficient withdrawals, and long-term healthcare costs. Conversely, if your primary goal is wealth accumulation through early-stage investing or equity compensation strategies, you'll benefit more from someone who routinely works with clients navigating similar terrain.
Aside from client demographics and financial profiles, consider asking how many clients the advisor currently serves and what level of attention you can expect. An advisor juggling hundreds of accounts may struggle to provide the same degree of personalization and responsiveness as one managing a smaller, more focused client base.
The cadence, format, and quality of communication can profoundly influence your confidence in the planning process and the effectiveness of the strategies implemented. Will you meet quarterly, semi-annually, or only when something changes? Is the advisor going to provide proactive check-ins or do you need to initiate contact?
You should also clarify the preferred modes of communication. Are you going to meet in person, online, through phone calls, or email updates? Knowing how information will be shared and how quickly you can expect responses will help you assess whether the advisor's communication methods align with your expectations and comfort level.
The quality of your advisor-client relationship hinges not only on their technical competence but also on the strength of their communication practices. When you establish these expectations upfront, you position yourself for a collaborative and effective partnership.
An advisor's philosophy informs how your portfolio will be constructed, managed, and adjusted over time. It reflects their beliefs about market efficiency, risk management, diversification, and the balance between active and passive investment strategies. For example, some advisors may adhere to a disciplined, evidence-based approach, focusing on broad diversification through low-cost index funds and strategic rebalancing. Others may favor a more hands-on methodology, involving tactical asset allocation or attempting to outperform benchmarks through individual security selection and market timing.
There is no one-size-fits-all answer, but compatibility is key. If you believe in long-term, buy-and-hold investing and your advisor frequently makes high-turnover trades based on market forecasts, such a misalignment could cause stress—or worse, losses.
It's also important to explore how the advisor navigates periods of market volatility and economic uncertainty. A thoughtful advisor will be able to articulate not only what they do during these times but why they do it. An advisor's investment philosophy should be a clear, coherent framework that instills confidence. Ensure their philosophy aligns with your goals, risk tolerance, and time horizon.
A truly client-centered advisor understands that success must be defined according to each individual's unique goals, timelines, and values. They help you articulate clear, attainable objectives, such as saving for a child's education, retiring comfortably at a specific age, or generating enough passive income to reduce reliance on employment. From there, they should implement systems for tracking your progress toward those goals in real terms, rather than relying on abstract performance metrics. They may use planning software, personalized dashboards, or periodic reviews to assess how well you're staying on course.
Additionally, measuring success involves regular reassessment and adjustment. Financial plans are living documents, and a responsible advisor will adapt your strategy to reflect life changes, market developments, or shifts in your priorities. This means success is not only measured by outcomes, but also by responsiveness and intentionality throughout the process. Ask whether you'll receive comprehensive performance reviews, how often your plan will be updated, and whether the advisor evaluates success based on client satisfaction, goal attainment, or both. A good advisor measures success not just by numbers on a statement, but by your confidence, peace of mind, and ability to live the life you envision.
While credentials and professional designations are important, hearing from real clients can add a layer of understanding that no résumé or marketing brochure can replicate. Asking for references or client testimonials provides a window into the advisor's reliability, communication style, effectiveness, and consistency over time.
Many seasoned advisors will have a library of anonymized testimonials, case studies, or satisfaction survey results that illustrate their impact. Some advisors may be willing to connect you with long-standing clients who can speak candidly about their journey. Online reviews can also shed light on patterns of client satisfaction or dissatisfaction that may not be immediately visible in official documentation. When an advisor is proud to let their clients do the talking, it's usually a sign that you're in good hands.
While the question may seem uncomfortable or confrontational, it is entirely appropriate and reflects due diligence. Financial professionals are regulated by oversight agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and various state securities boards. These regulatory bodies are responsible for enforcing ethical standards, ensuring legal compliance, and protecting investors from misconduct.
Any history of disciplinary action—whether it involves fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, or failure to disclose conflicts of interest—should be taken seriously. Even seemingly minor infractions can reveal underlying issues with judgment, integrity, or accountability. When a prospective advisor is asked about their disciplinary history, they should respond openly and without hesitation. If any actions have occurred, they should be willing to provide context, explain what transpired, and describe the steps taken to rectify the situation or prevent recurrence. An unwillingness to address this topic transparently can be a red flag in itself.
Fortunately, much of this information is a matter of public record. You can verify an advisor's background through FINRA's BrokerCheck and the SEC's Investment Adviser Public Disclosure website. These resources offer detailed information on licensing, registration status, past disciplinary actions, and customer complaints. Review these records to corroborate what you are told and gain a fuller understanding of the advisor's professional track record.
More than hiring a professional, choosing a financial advisor is about entrusting someone with your aspirations, goals, and your family's future. By asking these ten questions, you arm yourself with the information necessary to make a confident and informed decision. The best advisors welcome your questions, appreciate your diligence, and, most importantly, they'll treat your financial well-being with the care, respect, and expertise it deserves.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ohio State coach Ryan Day supports a College Football Playoff with 'at least' 4 bids guaranteed for Big Ten
As different formats continue to be discussed for future iterations of the College Football Playoff, put Ryan Day in the camp of those who want multiple automatic qualifiers for conferences. In an interview with ESPN, Day advocated for the Big Ten to get at least four automatic bids. One of the possible formats for the CFP going forward would be a 16-team edition with four guaranteed bids each for the SEC and Big Ten. "We're in the Big Ten, and we have 18 teams and some of the best programs in the country," Day told ESPN. "I feel like we deserve at least four automatic qualifiers." Advertisement Day's sentiments are in contrast with coaches across the SEC who spoke about potential playoff formats at the league's spring meetings. If the playoff expands to 16 teams in the near future — something that feels like a near-certainty at this point — two formats have gotten the most attention. The one Day supports would include the eight guaranteed berths for the Big Ten and SEC along with just two berths each for the ACC and SEC and three wild cards. The second would include guaranteed spots for all four conference champions and the highest-ranked conference champion from the other five conferences. From there, the 11 other spots would be filled out among the highest-ranked teams in the final College Football Playoff rankings that didn't win conference championships. Even SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said that a format with four guaranteed bids for his league and just three available wild cards could cost his league postseason berths. Advertisement Day cited non-conference scheduling as a reason for guaranteed bids. He believes teams would weaken their non-conference schedules under another format. "If you don't have those automatic qualifiers, you're less likely to play a game like we're playing this year against Texas, because it just won't make sense," Day said. "If we do, then you're more likely to do that, because we play nine conference games in the Big Ten. The SEC doesn't. So it's not equal." The Big Ten had four teams in the first 12-team playoff at the end of the 2024 season. The Buckeyes were the No. 8 seed in the playoff after finishing at No. 6 in the final rankings. Oregon, Penn State and Indiana joined Ohio State in the field and the Buckeyes had to beat the Ducks in the Rose Bowl on their way to a national title. The Big Ten also got the most teams of any conference into the playoff. Three SEC teams made the field; No. 11 Alabama was the first team out. That 'snub' of the 9-3 Crimson Tide continues to be a talking point for the SEC as the conference mulls whether or not to expand to nine conference games. Guaranteeing at least four bids for the Big Ten and SEC would put the conferences at a distinct advantage over everyone else and provide a safety net of sorts if either league had a down year. But given the sheer size and strength of both conferences, there are likely to be at least four teams from each in a 16-team playoff. The SEC would've had six teams in the field a season ago in a 16-team format that included 11 at-large berths.


New York Times
13 hours ago
- New York Times
The SEC and Big Ten demanded the power to shape the CFP's future. Now they can't agree
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey often talks about the challenges of solving problems in large rooms of people, balancing many voices, viewpoints and priorities, as the root of college sports' myriad issues. It's a fair point, and those rooms have shrunk in recent years in the hopes of finding better solutions more efficiently. The current College Football Playoff negotiations are a chance to prove Sankey's theory correct. Advertisement Yes, the other FBS conferences contractually have the right to provide 'meaningful input,' but the room where the next CFP format will be decided needs only two chairs — one for Sankey and one for his Big Ten counterpart, Tony Petitti. The SEC and Big Ten were tired of operating in a structure that required consensus from all 11 CFP stakeholders. The new contract that kicks in next year gives the SEC and the Big Ten the power to do what they think is best. Yet, still, the CFP talks have hit a bump, stemming directly from the SEC's interminable internal debate over whether to continue to play eight conference games or move to nine, which would match the number played by the Big Ten. After the SEC spent last week making headlines and pounding its chest at its annual spring meetings, decision-makers in the Big Ten were left wondering whether the two leagues can agree on a model for determining college football's champion. 'We thought we were on the same page. What was that?' one incredulous Big Ten athletic director, granted anonymity to candidly address the state of discussions, told The Athletic late last week. The Big Ten's preference is clear and has been for a while: The CFP field should be primarily made up of automatic qualifiers (AQs) determined by conference standings and play-in games. Whether that field includes 14 teams or 16 — the new front-runner — doesn't seem to matter that much. Administrators in Big Ten country believed the SEC was on board. Twice in the last nine months, Big Ten and SEC leaders held joint meetings. Sankey and Petitti, by all accounts, have a good relationship. They're supposed to be 'on the same page,' leading college sports from their perches atop it. Not so fast. SEC athletic directors and coaches left Destin, Fla., intrigued with a different plan. Instead of AQs, what if five conference champions and 11 at-large selections populated a 16-team bracket? The plan was developed by the Big 12 as a way to appeal to the SEC's ego. Advertisement '(SEC coaches) talked about — I'll call it a 5-11 model — and our own ability to earn those berths,' Sankey said last week during one of four briefings with reporters. 'The question is, why wouldn't that be fine? Why wouldn't we do that?' 'I kinda like the 5-11 model, if we can fix the selection process,' an SEC athletic director said as the meetings wound down. It is important to stress that everything being debated about the size and scope of the CFP can be summed up thusly: The Big Ten and SEC do not trust the selection committee process. It's nothing personal. Many current athletic directors in both conferences have served on the 13-member committee. Michigan AD Warde Manuel was its chair last year for the first 12-team Playoff. But just one season's worth of 12-team data was enough to convince many that the committee did not properly account for the varying degrees of difficulty college football teams face within their schedules. 'The strength of our conference and how that's evaluated is really something we want to be a priority. I think that's important for us,' Sankey said last Thursday as the SEC closed its meetings by distributing six pages of charts, graphs and metrics detailing its awesomeness. 'The extent we can have clarity, maybe that can keep us advancing. Maybe if we lack clarity, maybe that causes us to take a step back in our decision-making.' Make no mistake, the Big Ten has similar concerns. Petitti would like to turn the selection committee into a seeding committee and use a model that guarantees his league and the SEC four CFP bids each. But the SEC's public proclamation of its power was a bit much for the Big Ten, which chooses to work in silence and cede the floor to its rival at this time of year. Still, if the SEC wants to consider a CFP model dominated by at-large selections, Big Ten leaders appear open-minded. On one condition: Time to play nine conference games, SEC. Advertisement And there's the rub. An AQ-centric CFP model provides the protection that SEC athletic directors feel would make it worthwhile to add another potentially difficult game to their already rigorous schedules. With a CFP field made up of mostly at-large bids, sprinkling nine extra losses across the conference becomes less appealing, especially after the selection committee seemed overly focused, according to the SEC, on the number of losses when ranking teams last year. To which folks in the Big Ten respond: Yes, welcome to our world. The Big Ten has been playing a nine-game conference schedule for nine years. If the SEC wants to talk 5-11 with the Big Ten, the conversation needs to start with a commitment to playing nine conference games. That seems to be a reasonable request. Then the two leagues can tackle the selection process and come up with metrics and protocols to guide committee members and make their choices less subjective. That's not an easy task, but let's be real: A 16-team field last year would have included six SEC teams, along with the four Big Ten teams that made it into the 12-teamer. Expanding the bracket alone should regularly get those conferences more than enough bids. Without multiple AQs, Petitti's vision of a reimagined championship weekend with high-stakes play-in games takes a serious hit. But taking them off the table doesn't have to bring negotiations back to square one. The Big Ten might be disappointed to backtrack from AQs, but implementing a 16-team model with a restructured selection process seems better than sticking with the status quo, which two Big Ten ADs suggested would be the fallback if the SEC and Big Ten can't agree on a new format. Even Sankey acknowledged that is a possible — however unlikely — scenario. The AQ debate has not been particularly well received by those outside the footprint of those two conferences, including general college football fans. The SEC and Sankey have publicly positioned themselves as potential saviors, pulling Petitti and the Big Ten away from an unpopular idea. Advertisement Now the Big Ten can turn it back on the SEC. Just play nine conference games, guys. The next meeting of the full 11-member CFP management committee is scheduled for mid-June. The Power 4 commissioners speak routinely among themselves and held their latest call earlier this week, with rethinking the selection process at the heart of the conversation. They all can stake a claim to feeling, at times, that it hasn't worked in their favor. See: unbeaten Florida State in 2023 when the ACC got left out. More importantly, though, Sankey and Petitti need to connect and sort out where things stand with their constituents. Both seem to understand that after emphasizing the need for their leagues to have more power, autonomy and alignment, failing to agree on the one item they truly can control would be, frankly, a little embarrassing. The room is all yours, gentlemen. Time to figure it out.


Fox Sports
a day ago
- Fox Sports
Why the 5+11 CFP format fails to meet objectives fans should want
I'm starting to feel very pessimistic about what some of the leaders in college football want to do with the sport. My optimism surrounding the future of college football is waning because I'm not sensing from some of these groups that they understand what's going on, and they're not considering you — the fans. In case you missed it, the discussion surrounding the College Football Playoff expansion took another turn this week. There was some momentum behind the push for a 16-team CFP with a format that features the five-highest-ranked conference champions getting an automatic bid, while the 11 remaining spots would be at-large bids (5+11 model). Last week, I shared my thoughts on which direction the CFP should go with expansion. While I'd prefer a 14-team CFP over a 16-team one, it seems evident that it will be expanded to 16 teams. In that scenario, I'd like to see a format with the Big Ten and SEC each getting four automatic qualifying spots, the ACC and Big 12 both getting two automatic qualifying spots, an automatic bid for the highest-ranked Group of 5 champion and three at-large bids/Notre Dame. However, the recent push for the 5+11 model picked up steam at the Big 12 and SEC conference meetings last week. Frankly, it's awful for college football on so many different levels. I have a ton of respect for Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark, and I think he's a smart guy, but I also disagreed with him when he co-signed the 5+11 model while speaking with reporters last week. "In talking to our [athletic directors] and coaches … the 5+11 model might not be ideal for the conference, but it's good for college football and it's what's fair," Yormark said. "We don't want any gimmes. We want to earn it on the field. That was the direction of the key stakeholder group, the ADs and the coaches, and I feel very comfortable with that. I feel the same way, and I've been very outspoken about it." That doesn't make sense, quite frankly. How can you earn it on the field when the CFP committee determines nearly the entire field? The 5+11 certainly hurts the Big 12, which would in turn hurt the sport because we need more conferences to be relevant. If we opt to go with the 5+11 model, we'd get four things: One, the entire sport is going to be determined in the boardroom and be committee-driven (which fans want that?); Two, we're going to lose valuable non-conference games; Three, you'd lose out on the possibility of having a conference championship play-in weekend (more on that here); Four, you'd have a massive amount of politicking and propaganda being pushed. (In fact, that final point was already being put into practice by the SEC at its conference meetings in Florida this past week, as it distributed an analytics packet that touted how tough the regular-season conference schedule is at its conference meetings.) Is this what we're going to be as a sport going forward? We should take the sport out of the boardroom and define the criteria a little more clearly on what it should take to make the CFP. The 5+11 model fails on every single level to drive the sport forward. Here are the six objectives I think must be considered when the CFP determines what format and model to use for expansion. 1. Increase fan base engagement As I've mentioned with some of the previous models they've thrown out with the 16-team CFP, you'd increase fan base engagement by increasing the probability that your team is playing meaningful games late in the season. In the 5+11 model, we're going to have rankings every week, so we're going to minimize the number of teams that feel like they have a relevant and defined path toward getting in. That would be particularly true if you play in the "wrong conference" where your team can only lose once, while it's OK for teams from other conferences to lose four games. 2. Increase meaningful games If we had a play-in weekend within conferences, each of the power conferences could have multiple games with a CFP spot on the line on the same weekend. If we went with the 5+11 model, we'd miss out on the idea of the third-place and sixth-place teams or the fourth-place and fifth-place teams in the Big Ten or SEC battling for one of the conference's automatic qualifying spots because of the 11 at-large bids. 3. Increase valuable non-conference games If this sport is solely determined in a boardroom and the committee decides who gets into the CFP, we're going to have what's happened already: athletic directors and teams getting rid of valuable non-conference games. Tennessee and Nebraska just called off their series because of this. The future of USC and Notre Dame's rivalry is also in question because of this. When there's a committee involved, the idea is to have as many wins as possible. The best way to get as many wins as possible is to have as easy of a schedule as possible. The committee has never really shown a willingness to honor teams for challenging themselves in non-conference play. The 5+11 model would fail to protect teams from challenging themselves in the non-conference slate. 4. Minimize or eliminate the committee Nobody wants all this committee-driven drama late in the year, with teams politicking and sending out analytics packets to prove their case. When nearly three-quarters of the field is made up of at-large bids, you're only going to see more of that. Having as many automatic qualifiers as possible would tone down the committee's influence beyond seeding. 5. Define a clear path In the other 16-team models, there's a clear path for teams to reach the CFP. They know they either need to win their conference championship game, finish within a certain spot in the standings or win one of the conference championship weekend play-in games. With the 5+11 model, the only clear path to making the CFP is to be one of the five highest-ranked conference champions. If you're not one of those five teams, you're hoping the committee likes your résumé. 6. Keep more conferences relevant This is vital for the health of the sport. It's important that the ACC and Big 12 remain relevant. Yet, if you go with the 5+11 model, the Big Ten and SEC will get more participants into the CFP. That means those conferences will continue to generate more revenue and power, further creating a fork in the road between those conferences and the rest. Simply put, the 5+11 model fails every objective, and it falls short of the other models. Far be it from me to disagree with smart people, but I don't see how the 5+11 model is "good for college football" and "fair." If I were Yormark or ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, I'd take a 14-team format that guaranteed my conference two spots right now. If the Big Ten and SEC really press those two conferences to accept a 16-team format, the ACC and Big 12 should ask for five guaranteed spots between the two conferences. Ultimately, I want the sport to be better for you, the fans. If the CFP expansion meets these objectives, it would do that. I'm concerned, though, about the recent push for the 5+11 model, which certainly wouldn't. Joel Klatt is FOX Sports' lead college football game analyst and the host of the podcast " The Joel Klatt Show. " Follow him at @joelklatt and subscribe to the "Joel Klatt Show" on YouTube . Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily. recommended Get more from College Football Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more