The financial advice landscape is evolving, with new movements and philosophies emerging to address perceived shortcomings in traditional models. One such movement, the Transparent Advisor Movement (TAM), has gained traction by advocating for ‘advice-only’ models and emphasizing ‘transparency.’ However, it’s crucial to acknowledge that the concept of ‘advice-only’ has been formalized previously. Notably through the Advice Only™ methodology developed by Quincy Hall. Established in 2019 with the publication of the book Advice Only: A Retirement Planning Handbook & Methodology. This unique methodology centers on the principle of separating financial advice from all forms of solicitation and implementation, while also valuing the hands-on experience and knowledge of advisors. Understanding this prior work provides valuable context when evaluating the claims and potential shortcomings of newer movements like the TAM.
Referrals as Currency
One of the core tenets of a fiduciary advisor is to act solely in the client’s best interest. But what happens when client referrals to others effectively become a form of currency? However, the TAM’s emphasis on referrals without safeguards or processes to preferred ‘experts’ raises questions about the true nature of these exchanges. Are these referrals genuinely in the client’s best interest? Or are they a form of non-monetary compensation between group members to and from spheres of influence—potentially creating obligations and influencing recommendations?
On the Merits
The referral system within the TAM appears to contrast with the merit-based approach of the Advice Only® platform, where, as stated on ‘Join Us – Advice Only,’ ‘ranking is merit-based’ and ‘algorithmic preference for advisors is weighted based on course sales, originality, location, advisor responsiveness, and overall positive client feedback.’ Leveling the playing field fosters a trustworthy and competitive environment where advisors succeed based on their merits and client engagement rather than through favoritism.
Transparency and Safeguards
Ironically, the TAM’s apparent practices contradict the same concerns that Sara Grillo’s Transparent Advisor Movement raised regarding transparency. Nowhere are these potential conflicts addressed, much less dealt with transparently. The dynamics of networking and referrals within the community blur the lines between genuine support and reciprocal favoritism. Networking is valuable but requires conducting it transparently and not willfully excluding aspects without explanation while ignoring actual client interests. This lack of transparency and potential for conflicts is a significant concern, especially considering the values this group touts rather feverishly on social media.
An ‘Anti-Experience’ Paradox
The TAM approach devalues advisors’ transactional experience and presents a paradox. Why work to limit the very thing clients often seek in advisors? Those real-world experiences include navigating complex financial situations, effecting transactions, and learning from others.
Exclusion Confusion
By excluding advisors with extensive transactional backgrounds or experience and instead requiring them to shed existing clients, the movement oddly attempts to limit access to that experience as a requirement for using the term ‘advice-only.’ Do they really expect moral authority to magically manifest simply by not checking a box on the firm’s ADV and by excluding valuable hands-on experience? In fact, it’s the opposite; these policies instead encourage a divisive environment among advisors and do a disservice to clients. Instead, it intends to stifle the term’s use and create new hidden and unmitigated conflicts. In short, ruin it.
The TAM’s approach, which requires advisors to either have no clients or drop existing clients, raises serious concerns about practicality. This requirement likely stifles the adoption and growth of the ‘advice-only’ term and catastrophically limits clients’ access to advisors who may best suit their needs.
Getting it Right
This misconception that ‘advice-only’ necessitates a DIY approach is something I’ve actively balanced in developing the Advice Only™ methodology. While DIY is a value-add service for some clients, it’s not the ENTIRE service as the TAM would have. The methodology was never intended solely for DIY investors or to exclude experienced advisors. The methodology recognizes the immense value of an advisor’s hands-on experience and knowledge, as stated in ‘Plan With Us – Advice Only‘: ‘The value of the financial professional is the direct hands-on experience working with many clients… Ultimately, the advisor brings their knowledge and expertise to the discussion.’ The methodology ensures objectivity without sacrificing any of the benefits of professional guidance.
Embrace Experience
The Advice Only™ platform actively encourages the integration of advisor experience. As our Frequently Asked Questions state, ‘Our courses are written by practicing financial advisors who can also serve as your advisors. Clients prefer planning with their instructors rather than a referral to someone else. Our original work with Advice Only™ aimed to address this by creating a methodology that maintains an objective experience while allowing advisors to leverage their highly sought-after transactional experience. Our system is ‘thoughtful and practical,’ offering a framework that ‘any advisor can use and all clients can depend on.’
Experience + Objectivity
Acknowledging the value of experience while ensuring objectivity through a structured process is a novel idea. Why on earth would clients instead want a situation where advisors on purpose lack the practical, hands-on knowledge to effectively guide clients through real-world financial decisions and become reliant on the referral dynamic introducing uncontrollable conflicts? We proved well before many of these other groups existed that advisors can be experienced and maintain objectivity through a structured process and should strive to share their hands-on experience. A reliably objective process giving clients what they seek. The idea that experience inherently compromises objectivity is a red herring—fearmongering made up by TAM members and evident in nearly every post online.
A Blind Eye
For some reason, the movement refuses to consider what we wrote in 2019 with our book, Advice Only: A Retirement Planning Handbook & Methodology. We make the point in the book that the term can be associated with a defined process that any advisor can use and all clients can rely on. It’s the idea that for decentralized widespread usage to flourish and not concentrate among a few, the methodology must only be associated with a defined process and be accessible to all advisors. An advisor has the choice to use our methodology or not. However, what ultimately matters is the reliability of the process to clients among the advisors who do.
Truth in Advertising
If an advisor decides to use our methodology, they are bound to a ‘truth in advertising’ standard that requires them to use the methodology properly as defined when promoting themselves. The big idea here is that this consistency complements an advisor’s fiduciary duty and reduces the pressure on them of this duty to clients, which has become misrepresented in the marketplace. Rather than regulation, which itself has been troubled, we invented an approach that self-polices its policies for the benefit of clients seeking to rely on a consistent process to deliver objective advice.
Give Credit Where It’s Due
The so-called Transparent Advisor Movement trounces on our work rather aggressively. It not only hurts my business, but it hurts the development of our ideas, which directly harms the consumer. How ironic. One can only assume the TAM group wholly rejects our ideas because they refuse to acknowledge our work but still refuse to explain in detail what the term means to them. The behavior of waiting for the right moment results in a missed opportunity, and as we’ve demonstrated, it pourously and irresponsibly leaves the door open to ANY interpretation. THAT’S not fiduciary; it’s hypocritical to the TAM’s stated objectives. The one thing we know with financial services is that if something is left open for abuse, it will be. Is that their goal?
A Lack of Standardization
As stated, the absence of a clear, universally accepted definition of ‘advice-only’ and the lack of standardized qualifications within the TAM have led to apparent inconsistencies in service delivery—where asset size, qualification, murky referrals, and advisor discretion all influence service offerings.
A Circle, Not a Square
For example, the practices of groups like the Garrett Planning Network (GPN), which previously relied heavily on advisor discretion in determining who receives hourly versus AUM service offerings, highlight the potential for arbitrary service delivery. The new Garrett Planning Alliance website established in 2024 describes ‘advice-only’ on their website as:
“Advice-Only compensation means the financial planner is paid only for advice.”
This circular definition offers no clarity or safeguards. It lacks deeper explanations and fails to establish processes or policies to manage conflicts of interest, such as referrals to and from ‘advice-only’ clients. Thus, it leaves open the possibility of non-monetary compensation.
No Entitlements
Furthermore, in a recent LinkedIn discussion, a financial planning professor, Craig Lemoine, defended GPN’s approach, arguing that Sheryl Garrett, the founder of GPN, was a pioneer in providing advice without selling products or offering AUM services.
“Did anyone in the 1990s use the term “advice only”? No, flat fee, hourly fee – but the independence was there.”
– Craig Lemoine
This defense overlooks the lack of a defined process and the potential for inconsistency in service delivery based on client assets. As I pointed out in the discussion, GPN’s approach lacks a standardized process, and clients risk receiving different experiences depending on the advisor based on what they have or don’t have. For example, if a client has 5 million dollars in investable assets (or $0 in investable assets), guess which service an advisor offers. There was and still is no consistency between hourly offerings, other offerings, and referrals.
Recognizing the Opportunity
Our methodology attempted to do what no one else bothered to do: formally define and standardize the ‘advice-only’ term. It now seems that several of these groups that existed before us and the new ones popping up are struggling to accept it or come up with a new methodology that isn’t confusingly similar to ours. The result has been leaving it undefined altogether. If you secretly like our ideas so much, work with us (like we have attempted to work with you) or clearly define your differences from us. Claiming transparency and touting your ethical fortitude but offering zero explanation just isn’t going to work. After all, we’re talking about money, right?
The lack of standardization within the TAM raises concerns about the movement’s commitment to transparency and client-centricity. Without a straightforward process and consistent service delivery, clients may find understanding and comparing offerings challenging, likely leading to confusion and dissatisfaction. Are you trying to confuse people?
Conflation and Confusion
The Transparent Advisor Movement (TAM) and others online have frequently conflated or misinterpreted the term ‘advice-only’ as a variation of established models like fee-only, fee-based, fee-for-service, and even DIY approaches. This conflation creates confusion for both advisors and clients, blurring the lines between wholly different service models and potentially obscuring the true nature of the advice.
Refuse, Reuse, Recycle
Their apparent purpose is to repurpose talking points and absorb the term ‘advice-only’ into existing preferred models, undermining the efforts to establish a distinct and transparent ‘advice-only’ service model as we’ve developed.
“Advice-only financial planning is fee-only comprehensive financial planning without the expectation or even the option to manage any client investments.”
This lack of clarity and consistency is evident in online discussions and interpretations of ‘advice-only’ services. Some view them as a subset of fee-only services, while others consider them synonymous with DIY or fee-for-service. This ambiguity undermines the very transparency that the TAM claims to champion.
Back to the Future
The Advice Only™ methodology, developed in 2019, was explicitly designed to address clarity and consistency well before many new interpretations existed. It was the first to establish a clear and distinct definition of ‘advice-only,’ emphasizing the separation of advice from all forms of solicitation and compensation beyond a direct client bill. Doing so ensures objectivity, prevents conflicts of interest, and maintains the ‘advice-only’ model’s integrity, guaranteeing clients a truly objective experience.
No Ambiguity
The cornerstone of the TAM is the term ‘advice-only,’ yet it lacks any concrete, universally accepted definition, particularly among its members. This ambiguity contrasts sharply with the Advice Only™ methodology, which defines the process as ‘advice separate from ALL FORMS of new financial solicitation.’ You’ll notice that our methodology went further than the obvious, encompassing ALL FORMS of compensation. We wrote the methodology this way to cover monetary and non-monetary forms of compensation. Dreamed-up forms of compensation can manifest as referrals or some other hard-to-identify compensation method. A purposeful lack of definition is evident among TAM members; apparently, they don’t think inconsistencies and inherent misunderstandings are an issue for consumers. Purposefully leaving the meaning of ‘advice-only’ open to any interpretation is irresponsible, especially when we’ve already identified a solution and TAM members are keenly aware of our work. Are you trying to hold back the profession?
Real Transparency
The Advice Only™ methodology, as a Singular Service Model, requires advisors to ‘ensure objectivity throughout the totality of the base educational and formal planning engagement,’ providing a standardized framework for both advisors and clients. As I’ve alluded to previously, ‘If one cannot specifically point to it, it must not exist (or doesn’t want to put it on the record),’ which only reinforces the need for a formal definition to ensure transparency and avoid ambiguity.
The Worst Case Scenario
The TAM’s ambiguity permits varying interpretations, potentially masking hidden conflicts. Without a clearly defined methodology and process controls, the movement fails to provide the transparency it claims to champion. This lack of a defined process echoes the very issue I encountered while developing the Advice Only™ methodology. We made it clear on day one to the advisor community that the ‘advice only’ term cannot be an undefined, generic process void of meaning and left to survive as ‘advice by itself’ without any additional explanation or development. Such a myopic approach is impractical, unnecessarily literal, and rigid, rendering the term unusable by the broader advisor community. This realization led us to a specific, defined process that ensures clarity, inclusivity, and practicality, which we formalized as the Advice OnlyTM methodology. Work that possesses unique qualities that make current interpretations among TAM members seem hollow.
Analyzing the Movement
While the Transparent Advisor Movement (TAM) promotes ethical principles, certain TAM members’ behavior raises serious concerns.
Claiming Everything, Explaining Nothing
A TAM member, Jeremy Schneider, recently founded hellnectarine.com, which inconsistently uses terms like “advice-only,” “fee-only,” and “flat-fee” without clear explanation. When challenged on the merits of his “advice-only” claims, he independently brought up our trademark application. Saying that having a trademark application that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board was reviewing for “advice-only” and being on the supplemental registry “doesn’t really mean anything.”
/>Despite the relevancy of index funds in many plans, the firm’s adherence to always using low-cost index funds predetermines a client’s planning outcomes. It denies a client the opportunity for an objective experience. And to make decisions based on a comprehensive and objective financial education. It may also create conflicts of interest related to investment products, particularly if client recommendations are made before gathering comprehensive financial information. After all, whose money is it? This approach raises the question of how much flexibility clients truly have. Pre-determined planning outcomes may limit a client’s ability to receive fully personalized advice. It raises concerns about potential conflicts in his business model.
Like the other examples mentioned in this article, Mr. Schneider offers no apparent clarity or safeguards. His business does not appear to provide clear explanations or documented policies regarding how potential conflicts—such as referrals within an ‘advice-only’ model—are addressed. Thus, the possibility of non-monetary compensation to and from ‘advice-only’ clients is conveniently beholden to discretion.
The Issue
Another TAM member, Steven Fox, started a company in late 2024 called AdviceOnly. An identical name to our long-established brand, using a confusingly similar logo (a triangle and circle design).
Days after viewing our profile on LinkedIn, Mr. Fox registered his corporation under the exact same name as ours. Despite not formally launching, he is actively onboarding advisors and clients under this name, which continues to create confusion.
When confronted with the facts in this post, Mr. Fox responded, “I don’t think there’s likely to be any confusion here between our firms.” However, actions have already led to documented marketplace disruption.
These developments raise serious concerns about fair competition and the integrity of the financial advice industry. The ‘Advice Only’ model and Advice Only™ methodology build on transparency and trust. These recent events demonstrate the risk of consumer misdirection when branding is not respected.
At a time when ethical financial advice is more important than ever, we believe in protecting consumers from confusion. We urge consumers to verify who they are working with and ensure they are engaging with the right firm.
Undermining Integrity Movement
Attempts to replicate an established brand and capitalize on years of dedicated work undermine the spirit of fair competition and transparency. These actions raise serious questions about the motives of some who claim to embrace “ethical” principles. Addressing these issues and promoting greater transparency and accountability is crucial to upholding its integrity and protecting consumers. Don’t settle for businesses with murky or unethical business practices. Opt for clarity and consistency. Find a financial advisor who follows a specified process designed to suit your best interests above all else.
Our company owns the trademark #88485973 Advice-Only. For educational services, namely, providing seminars and online classes in the fields of financial planning and retirement. Since 2019, we have used the trademark and Advice OnlyTM name to refer to our methodology. This includes our lawfully registered D.B.A. in California, domain name “adviceonly.info,” and the book Advice Only: A Retirement Planning Handbook.
