Fun fact:
In the Philippines, the title Financial Advisor is not a regulated profession.
There is no government license that defines who can use it.
That single fact explains why many people receive insurance sales pitches when they expect financial advice.
This article is evidence-based, not opinion-based
Everything below is grounded in:
Licensing rules
Compensation structures
Regulatory scope
Publicly verifiable practices
This is not an attack on individuals.
It is an explanation of systems and incentives.
What “Financial Advisor” legally means in the Philippines
In the Philippines:
There is no single license for “financial advisor”
Insurance agents are licensed through the Insurance Commission
That license authorizes them to sell insurance products
It does not require holistic financial planning, fiduciary duty, or fee-based advice
The title Financial Advisor is:
Self-assigned
Used in marketing
Not a legal designation
Two people can use the same title while doing completely different jobs.
How compensation shapes recommendations
Most Philippine insurance agents are paid through:
First-year commissions
Renewal commissions
Sales incentives and volume bonuses
This structure is documented in:
Agent contracts
Recruitment materials
Product disclosures
When income depends on selling a policy, recommendations are not neutral.
This is not a moral claim.
It is a structural fact.
Why advice often looks the same
Insurance agents are contractually limited:
They can only sell their company’s products
They are trained primarily on those products
Performance is measured by sales, not outcomes
This is why:
Different clients receive similar proposals
Conversations quickly shift to VULs
Insurance becomes the “plan,” not a component
Consistency across clients is not coincidence.
It is incentive alignment.
Insurance is not the problem
Insurance has a legitimate role.
Term insurance can be appropriate.
The problem is mislabeling.
Selling insurance while calling it financial advice:
Creates false trust
Hides conflicts of interest
Pushes long-term commitments without full context
People rarely regret buying insurance.
They regret buying the wrong product for the wrong reason.
How this differs from Financial Advisors in the USA
In the United States, the term financial advisor is more clearly defined.
Not perfect.
But structurally different.
Regulation and fiduciary duty
In the US:
Many advisors are Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs)
RIAs are regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or state authorities
Many operate under a fiduciary standard
Fiduciary duty means:
Acting in the client’s best interest
Disclosing conflicts
Facing penalties for misleading advice
In the Philippines:
No fiduciary requirement
No standard definition of “advisor”
No obligation beyond product sales
How advisors are paid
In the US:
Fee-only and fee-based models are common
Clients pay directly for advice
An advisor can recommend “do nothing” and still be compensated
In the Philippines:
Advice is usually “free”
Costs are embedded in products
Payment depends on closing a sale
This difference changes behavior.
Scope of advice
A typical US advisor may cover:
Cash flow and budgeting
Retirement planning
Tax-aware investing
Estate planning coordination
Insurance as one tool, not the centerpiece
A typical PH “financial advisor” focuses on:
Life insurance
VUL projections
Riders and add-ons
One company’s product lineup
Same title.
Different systems.
Different outcomes.
One question that protects you
Before accepting advice, ask:
“How are you paid?”
If the answer is:
“Through commissions”
“You don’t pay anything”
“It depends on the product”
Then understand this clearly:
You are not the customer.
You are the product.
The takeaway
This is a fun fact with real consequences.
In the Philippines:
“Financial advisor” is often a sales role
The title is marketing, not a qualification
Advice and sales are not the same thing
In the United States:
Advisory roles are more regulated
Incentives are clearer
Paying for advice is normal
Same words.
Different systems.
Very different results.
Clarifying statement:
This article is based on publicly verifiable licensing rules, compensation models, and regulatory standards. It explains systems, not personalities.
0 Comments