Add new comment

Maybe as they arent working for all the clients that pay thier wages? You cant see anything wrong with that? If they stood on thier own two feet and only operated on fee for service only this would be different, but to subsidise advisers through everyones member fees isnt in the members best interests. How can it be? Your example of amp et all isnt a true comparison thier advisers need to charge clients directly they dont get paid wages.