Who are the high income earning financial advisers? Conventional wisdom tell us that if what the financial advisers are doing frequently and often - those kind of methods must have been quite rewarding and hence financial advisers who practice such methods must be quite well to do. This is based on the assumption that the "market" is rationate since nobody will want to do something frequently that is non-rewarding. I heard of many stories of financial advisers committing churning (a process in which the advisers sell and buy frequently without good reason and detrimental to the client in high fees); pushing products (Last friday I met a client who got so angry at her private banker trying to push products down into her throat); mispresentation (heard of many cases that the FA promises 5% guarantee return of a product which turns out to be simple interest and not annualized); half-truths (heard of another case of a FA told his client of a guaranteed 5% (now really annualized) but omitted the catch that the client has to buy another ILP product); ommission of toxicity (heard of many clients who bought investment grade "bonds" which turned out to be toxic CDOs which are defaulting like nobody business these days); even fund manager misrepresents (OK, this one I better not give example because I can get lawyers letter from them). I am sure these financial advisers must be earning tons of money doing this kind of things right? No. In a study conducted by CEG WorldWide, top earning financial advisers are doing quite the opposite which I summarised here:

The full article can be downloaded here: HERE

My comments after reading the article:

1. With regard to having few clients - many financial advisers do not select their clients. They just anyhow "hamtum" and prospect anybody without thinking. I always see advisers prospecting in bus interchanges. Those who do cold-calls anyhow hamtum the residential address book. Aiyo, how to serve so many different types of people? Besides, nobody can be expert in all markets.
2. With regard to providing a variety of investment solutions. This is where I pity the person who could only represent one company. How to give the client choices?
3. On the part of "true problem solvers, not product pusher," at least there is some proof to show that product pushing will not increase the income of the adviser. It just push the client further away. In fact, all professionals solves problems. Financial advisory is a professional job, they must solve problems. Wow taught them to push products?
4. On the part of focusing on basic rather then fad, this is something really interesting. There was a time which many advisers got involved in MLM. That was history already. But these days the "fad" are like chasing the hottest sector or funds. I must admit that I dislike attending fund managers talk like fund launches. Have anyone notice that funds tends to launch when the relevant market has peaked? Also, they always say the same thing - the market is good and my fund is best. If the market crash, they just say hold long term. Yeah right - the problem is that their fund underperforms the benchmark. If I hold long term, I going to loss my job fast.
5. Keep primary focus on client. This is not easy for most advisers. Many advisers are more keen in the MDRT or Top of the Table or dunno what Million club. Also when some product providers give incentive trip to Japan or Beijing or North Pole, the advisers decided to focus selling the product until they forget that the incentive trip will come and go but their client will be there for a long time. So who is more important? Client or trip? Maybe they should just marry Japan or Beijing if they like it so much.
6. On "fee-only". In Singapore this hype is rare but in US some advisers go to an extreme to keep on talking about "fee-only". The word "fee-only" means that the financial adviser do not get any commission but only the agreed fee that is paid by the client. In Singapore this model is rare but I hope this do not get overhyped. Focus is always on delivering the benefit to the client. Focusing on the "fee-only" is like focusing on the Beijing trip forgetting that the client is number 1. BTW, in the US one fellow becomes a celebrity in TV show by focusing on "fee-only."
7. Leverage their financial institutions vendors effectively. This is really an interesting point.  Some of my colleagues have very close relationship with the insurers such as providing them consultation work and feedback. At times this results in creation of superior products which ultimately benefit the consumers. 
8. Commitment to education. I heard that many IFA firms have big problems with their CPD hours. Some advisers have to get their hours by going for external courses (waste money) otherwise their licensed will be suspended. I really wonder what value-add their firm give them. Why bother to work for a shell company that does not value add? But on the adviser's part, they must strive to educate themselves without being asked. Education does not need to be formal. It can merely be just reading news from bloomberg or just reading up the product specific before selling. It amazes me that some advisers can sell their products even before they attend any training. Of course, it has been said that with good selling skill one can sell ice to eskimo. Right, sure.

Contrary to popular belief, high income advisers do not churn, are not product pushers, who are not keen in fad but instead serve fewer clients and they do it exceptionary well, provide variety of investment solutions, primarly focusing on their client, take time to study, not so hype up in how they are compensated and finally establishes useful relationship wiith the institution vendors.