ADVISOR DUE DILIGENCE & ALIGNMENT WORKBOOK
A Governance-Based Guide to Evaluating Financial Advice, Incentives, and Accountability
Educational content only. Not financial, tax, investment, or legal advice.
INTRODUCTION — WHY THIS WORKBOOK EXISTS
Most people do not hire bad advisors.
They hire advisors they do not know how to evaluate.
Financial advice fails quietly when:
- Conflicts are misunderstood
- Compensation incentives are unclear
- Scope is assumed instead of defined
- Accountability is never measured
- Outcomes are confused with activity
This workbook exists to help you audit advice itself—not personalities, credentials, or marketing claims.
You are not here to fire anyone.
You are here to decide whether trust is earned, justified, and maintained.
HOW TO USE THIS WORKBOOK
Each section follows the same structure:
- Why this area matters
- A realistic scenario
- Due diligence questions
Scoring
- 🟢 Green — Clear, documented, verifiable
- 🟡 Yellow — Explained verbally but not defined
- 🔴 Red — Vague, avoided, or inconsistent
One red flag is not failure.
Patterns of red flags indicate structural risk.
PAGE 1 — WHAT IS YOUR ADVISOR ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR?
Why This Matters
Advice without responsibility is commentary.
Responsibility without accountability is noise.
Many advisory relationships fail because expectations are never explicitly defined.
Scenario
A client believed their advisor was “watching taxes.”
Years later, they discovered:
- No tax projections were run
- No coordination occurred
- Missed opportunities were permanent
No one failed their job.
The job was never defined.
Due Diligence Questions
- Do I know exactly what my advisor is responsible for?
- Is that responsibility documented?
- Do I know what they are not responsible for?
- Do I know how often advice is proactively delivered?
- Do I know what triggers advisor action?
- Do I know how missed items are handled?
- Do I know how decisions are documented?
- Do I know how progress is reviewed?
- Do I know how advice adapts as my life changes?
- Do I know who is accountable for outcomes?
PAGE 2 — CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: STRUCTURAL, NOT PERSONAL
Why This Matters
Conflicts do not require bad intent.
They arise from how advisors are paid and incentivized.
Undisclosed or misunderstood conflicts quietly distort advice.
Scenario
An advisor recommended a product that paid them more.
The product wasn’t inappropriate—but alternatives were never discussed.
The conflict wasn’t illegal.
It was invisible.
Due Diligence Questions
- Is my advisor legally required to act as a fiduciary?
- Are conflicts disclosed in plain language?
- Does compensation change based on recommendations?
- Are proprietary products used?
- Are alternatives discussed proactively?
- Does complexity increase compensation?
- Are referrals compensated?
- Are conflicts ongoing or situational?
- Are conflicts mitigated—or just disclosed?
- Do I understand where incentives point?
PAGE 3 — HOW YOUR ADVISOR IS PAID (AND WHY IT SHAPES ADVICE)
Why This Matters
Compensation models influence:
- What gets prioritized
- What gets ignored
- How advice scales as complexity increases
Compensation Models Explained
Commission-Based Only
Fee-Based (Hybrid)
Fee-Only (AUM or Hourly)
Flat Fee Only
Each model shapes behavior differently.
Due Diligence Questions
- Do I know exactly how my advisor is paid?
- Do fees increase as assets increase?
- Do fees increase without service changes?
- Are there layered or indirect fees?
- Do I know my total all-in cost?
- Does the model reward complexity?
- Does it reward asset gathering?
- Does it reward advice quality?
- Would I choose this model again today?
- Does compensation align with my needs?
PAGE 4 — SCOPE CLARITY VS SCOPE CREEP
Why This Matters
“Comprehensive” is not a service—it’s a word.
Due Diligence Questions
- Is the scope of advice clearly defined?
- Is tax planning included—or excluded?
- Is estate coordination included?
- Is insurance analysis included?
- Is retirement income planning included?
- Is implementation included?
- Are meetings proactive or reactive?
- Is scope reviewed annually?
- Are changes documented?
- Do I know what costs extra?
PAGE 5 — INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT VS FINANCIAL ADVICE
Due Diligence Questions
- Is my investment philosophy documented?
- Is risk defined behaviorally?
- Are taxes considered in decisions?
- Is asset location addressed?
- Is rebalancing rule-based?
- Are decisions explained?
- Are outcomes tied to goals?
- Is downside risk discussed?
- Is volatility planned for?
- Is investing integrated with planning?
PAGE 6 — ACCOUNTABILITY & METRICS
Due Diligence Questions
- Are goals clearly defined?
- Are metrics tracked?
- Is progress reviewed regularly?
- Are assumptions revisited?
- Are decisions documented?
- Are misses acknowledged?
- Are course corrections proactive?
- Is success defined beyond returns?
- Are risks tracked over time?
- Is accountability mutual?
PAGE 7 — COMMUNICATION & TRANSPARENCY
Due Diligence Questions
- How often is communication proactive?
- Is education ongoing?
- Are tradeoffs explained?
- Are risks discussed before decisions?
- Are changes communicated promptly?
- Is transparency consistent?
- Are questions encouraged?
- Is bad news delivered clearly?
- Are limitations disclosed?
- Do I feel informed—or reassured?
PAGE 8 — TYPES OF FINANCIAL PROFESSIONALS
Insurance Advisors
Investment Advisors (RIAs)
Financial Planners
Titles do not determine alignment.
Structure does.
PAGE 9 — RED FLAGS vs GREEN FLAGS
Red Flags:
- Vague scope
- Undisclosed conflicts
- Fee opacity
- Reactive communication
Green Flags:
- Written scope
- Transparent fees
- Tradeoffs explained
- Proactive cadence
Patterns matter.
PAGE 10 — ADVISOR REVIEW AGENDA
- What are you accountable for?
- What conflicts exist?
- How are you compensated?
- What is included—and excluded?
- How do you define success?
- How are decisions documented?
- How do you coordinate with others?
- How do you adapt as my life changes?
- What assumptions matter most?
- What would cause this relationship to fail?
FINAL CHECKLIST — ADVISOR DUE DILIGENCE CHECKLIST
- ☐ Role clarity
- ☐ Scope definition
- ☐ Fee transparency
- ☐ Conflict awareness
- ☐ Accountability metrics
- ☐ Communication cadence
- ☐ Integrated advice
- ☐ Informed trust decision
FINAL EDUCATIONAL DISCLAIMER
This workbook is provided for educational and informational purposes only.
It does not constitute financial, tax, investment, or legal advice.
Consumers should evaluate financial professionals based on transparency, incentive alignment, scope clarity, and accountability—not titles or marketing claims.
© Arizona Fee Only. All rights reserved.