Sponsored
How Financial Advisors & Platforms Get Paid – and Why It Affects Your Portfolio 

by Kevin Kroskey, CFP^®, MBA 

Most investors understand that markets fluctuate. They accept that risk and return move together. They recognize that economic cycles are inevitable. 

What far fewer investors examine is the structure of the system delivering their advice – and how compensation arrangements can quietly shape long-term outcomes. 

At the industry’s largest, brand-name firms, their scale is often levied to extract additional revenues that influence product access, advisor recommendations, and ultimately client outcomes. 

Shelf Economics 

In May 2025, Financial Planning published an industry-wide review examining how major wealth management firms structure revenue-sharing arrangements. The analysis covered nine of the largest brokerage and advisory platforms – Ameriprise Financial, LPL Financial, UBS Financial Services, Morgan Stanley, Edward Jones, Merrill (Bank of America), JPMorgan Wealth Management, Wells Fargo Advisors, and Raymond James – and detailed how product sponsors compensate platforms through asset-based support fees, marketing reimbursements, and data-related payments. 

Across firms, revenue-sharing payments remain tied to client assets held in various products and strategies. Some platforms charge tiered support fees tied to expense ratios. Others receive marketing reimbursements or data-related payments from sponsors seeking visibility and access. 

The Financial Planning review reported that one large brokerage firm received approximately $315.3 million in revenue-sharing payments from mutual fund and 529 plan sponsors in 2024. That placed traditional revenue-sharing payments in the range of roughly 2–3% of total revenue. Separately, the same firm disclosed shareholder accounting fees – compensation paid by fund companies for recordkeeping and servicing – representing approximately 2.9% of total revenue. 

These are not dominant revenue sources. They are not trivial either. They are economically meaningful components of how large brokerage platforms operate. 

This does not imply misconduct. It illustrates incentive structure. And structure shapes incentives. 

The Subtle Shift 

Two decades ago, conflicts were easier to identify. Brokerage firms promoted proprietary funds manufactured in-house. The incentive was visible on the label. Today’s environment is more nuanced. 

Larger firms often own subsidiaries they acquire and continue to operate under the acquired brand name. The separate brands appear distinct. However, the economics are not, flowing back to the platform firm. 

Separately, most large platforms operate under “open architecture,” offering products from outside third-party managers. On the surface, the shelf appears neutral. But distribution economics still influence placement and visibility. 

Managers that participate in support arrangements may receive greater exposure. Those that decline may receive less or no access at all. The practice is disclosed. The implications are rarely discussed. 

Exchange-traded funds are often viewed as the clean alternative. They generally lack traditional 12b-1 distribution fees mutual funds carried and are marketed as transparent and low-cost. Broadly speaking, ETFs have improved cost and tax efficiency relative to legacy mutual fund structures. 

But as industry reporting indicates, ETF distribution economics have evolved. Asset-based support fees, promotional reimbursements, and data-related payments now exist within parts of the ETF ecosystem at some large brokerage platforms. In addition, brokerage firms may generate revenue through trading spreads, payment for order flow, securities lending, cash sweep programs, or advisory fees tied to ETF holdings. 

Compensation always exists somewhere in the system. The question is whether those incentives are well aligned with the investor’s objectives. 

It’s Not Only About Cost 

Most conversations about conflicts focus narrowly on expense ratios. Cost matters. Even modest differences compound significantly over long horizons. But the more consequential issue may be availability. 

When asset managers are required to pay platform support or marketing fees to gain visibility, some choose not to participate. They may prefer to compete on cost discipline, tax efficiency, or investment philosophy rather than pay distribution economics. When that happens, those strategies may never appear on certain brokerage platforms. 

The investor does not see a rejected option. The investor sees only the curated shelf. In that environment, a potentially preferable strategy – lower cost, more tax-efficient, more disciplined – may not be presented simply because the economics of distribution did not align. 

Markets will fluctuate. Innovation will continue. Disclosure documents will expand. But incentives will always shape visibility and emphasis. Long-term success often depends less on discovering a brilliant new investment and more on minimizing hidden frictions and seeking a brokerage firm or advisor with well aligned interests to your own. 

Structural alignment is not dramatic. But over decades, it can be decisive. And it is one of the few variables investors can meaningfully control. 

Sponsored by

Kevin Kroskey, CFP^®, MBA is the Founder of True Wealth Design, providing “Accounting, Tax & Wealth Solutions To Help You Plan Smarter and Live Better.” This article is for educational purposes only. The strategies referenced apply to Accredited Investors or Qualified Purchases per SEC regulations. To explore how these strategies may apply to you, call or email kkroskey@truewealthdesign.com.

Opinions and claims expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of ScripType Publishing.