To recap the series so far, we talked about the three main types of financial advice compensation models available to Canadian investors.

The commission model is by far the most prevalent. Investment selection and financial planning advice are paid for out of the commissions generated by the investment products – stocks, bonds, mutual funds or exchange-traded funds.

The fee-based model charges for advice and transactions based on a percentage of assets; it is really gaining steam in the industry. Firms are constantly extolling the virtues of predictable, recurring income streams to their advisers (I know, I used to get the presentations all the time).

Finally, the fee-only model is advice by the hour (or by a flat rate) in its purest form. There are relatively few financial advisers offering pure fee-only advice due to the costs of registering for the special licence required to talk directly about individual securities.

(Side note: if you are looking for help with only financial planning or more specific issues, you could get a money coach. They are not licensed to give advice on individual investments, but many offer a flat rate or hourly advice on general personal finance.)

So which is the best model? There is no clear winner.

Many commentators will show a strong favouritism for fee-only models, followed by fee based and then followed by commission. This favouritism exists because the transparency for the former models is hard to argue with. Fee-only advice can be shown to be the cheapest for larger portfolios – but cost is only part of the equation.

Really what they are saying is that you should be aware of what you are paying and what you are receiving in exchange. The ability to do so relies more on the candour of your adviser. It is quite possible for an adviser to be transparent, and offer the lowest cost and best value using a commission model. It’s just not prevalent.

The acid test would be to talk to your adviser about the three models available in the industry. Why do they choose to operate under the model they have? What would the costs be for the other models in your case?

There won’t be uniform answers to these types of questions, but the degree of candour your adviser provides in his or her response will be key. Do they provide a song and dance? Or do they rationally discuss the pros and cons of each? Do they directly answer your questions?

I said at the beginning of this series that one of your goals was to minimize costs, all other things being equal. And that’s the catch – all other things are not equal. Different advisers have different service levels. Some only offer investment advice and some offer financial planning on top of that. Some bend over backwards and spend lots of time with you, and others may just churn out charts and graphs and assume you’ll call if you have questions.

While I can’t provide a perfect scenario that is best for everyone, after reading this series, you should have a better idea of what is right for you.