Why Brokerage Suitability Models Are Breaking Under Pressure

This article explores structural concerns that have emerged within suitability-based brokerage models and examines the implications for Canadian families. It is presented as an opinion intended to inform and invite dialogue. Some investors believe suitability provides sufficient protection. Others argue that recurring supervisory and administrative failures indicate bigger systemic risks that families need to understand as they plan long-term.

Canadian investors are facing a moment of clarity. Recent regulatory actions by the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization and multiple American regulators have exposed deep structural weaknesses inside the suitability-based brokerage model. These events matter for Canadians who are trying to protect their wealth in an increasingly unpredictable financial environment. They reveal a growing disconnect between what many firms promise and how they actually manage client accounts. The rising frequency of these supervisory findings reflects broader operational pressures in the financial industry, including increasingly complex systems, large-scale data integrations, and growing regulatory demands that make it more difficult for suitability-based firms to maintain consistent oversight over long periods.

This article examines the sanctions, explores why suitability-based advice leaves investors exposed, and explains why many Canadians choose a fiduciary discretionary model when they want alignment, transparency, and long-term stewardship. The purpose is not to criticize specific firms, but to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of two different regulatory frameworks so investors can make informed decisions.

👉 Subscribe to The Merrick Spitters Reset Report™ and receive a digital copy of our international bestseller, It Starts With Gold™, along with our white paper, Last Asset Standing™ and early updates on our forthcoming book, Killing Crypto™.

On December 2, 2025, the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization reported that Edward Jones (Canada) admitted it failed to maintain adequate internal controls and supervisory systems. This failure resulted in more than 10,000 clients being overcharged by approximately 3.6 million dollars between September 2010 and August 2024.

The firm agreed to:

• • • pay a fine of one hundred twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars
    • pay costs of five thousand dollars
    • return over four point six million dollars to affected clients, including interest
    • claw back nearly five hundred thousand dollars from 276 financial advisors whose compensation increased as a result of the errors

The errors were not related to investment performance. They were related to basic administrative functions such as grouping related accounts and applying appropriate fee discounts. These processes depended on accurate and standardized address data. When the data was inconsistent, fee reductions that clients were entitled to were not applied.

Edward Jones self-reported the first set of issues in May 2024 during a transition from an external portfolio manager to an internal one. A data submission failure triggered the discovery. In August 2024, a second issue surfaced in non-managed accounts. The firm compensated clients and cooperated with regulators.

For Canadian investors, this raises a structural question. If a large, well-known brokerage can experience a fourteen-year period where fundamental fee calculations break down without detection, how much confidence can investors place in future oversight inside suitability-based environments? These developments reflect a broader industry shift, where increasing regulatory complexity, large data migrations, and pressure to standardize fee structures have amplified the risk of process errors inside legacy systems.

While the 2025 CIRO settlement was Canadian, similar concerns have emerged repeatedly in the United States, reinforcing the need for Canadian investors to understand the suitability model more deeply.

FINRA Enforcement Action

In December 2024, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority announced that Edward Jones and several other firms would repay more than eight point two million dollars related to mutual fund fee rebates and waivers. Edward Jones accounted for roughly four point four million dollars of the total. Regulators found that the firm did not consistently identify which clients qualified for cost reductions, which resulted in unnecessary costs being passed on to those clients.

NASAA Multi-State Settlement

In January 2025, the North American Securities Administrators Association announced a seventeen-million-dollar settlement with Edward Jones related to four years of supervisory concerns. Fourteen states participated in the investigation. Regulators concluded that many clients who purchased Class A mutual fund shares under brokerage accounts and later moved into advisory accounts were charged redundant fees.

The concern was not performance. It was a process. It was an oversight. It was whether systems and supervision consistently protected clients through transitions.

In August 2024, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission issued an order noting that Edward Jones willfully violated several supervisory-related rules, including rules under Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. These findings raised potential statutory disqualification concerns, requiring the firm to file a Membership Continuance Application with FINRA later that year.

Across these bodies, Canadian investors can observe a consistent theme. Weaknesses in supervision. Weaknesses in controls. Weaknesses in fee tracking. Weaknesses in oversight. These findings do not suggest malice. They suggest structural fragility inside the suitability model itself. These outcomes also point to a regulatory environment that is becoming more assertive. Supervisory expectations continue to rise, data reviews are becoming more detailed, and regulatory bodies are increasingly focused on how firms implement their oversight, not just whether the final numbers appear reasonable.

Canadian investors often assume that large firms have airtight controls. Many do. Yet the suitability model has built-in vulnerabilities that can allow issues to persist for years before regulatory intervention.

Key concerns that Canadian investors must recognize include:

Sales incentives can influence recommendations

Suitability-based advisors are often compensated through commissions or product sales. This structure legally permits conflicts as long as the product is considered suitable. A commission-based product may be suitable even if a lower-cost non-commission alternative would better serve the client.

The NASAA settlement shows how transitions between brokerage and advisory accounts can create situations where clients pay both commissions and advisory fees.

Internal system fragility creates long-term exposure

The CIRO settlement demonstrates that something as basic as inconsistent address entry can prevent a system from grouping related accounts and applying appropriate discounts. Over fourteen years, this small administrative gap created millions in excess charges.

Oversight gaps can remain invisible for long periods

Regulators often discover issues only after long periods. The suitability model permits compensation structures and internal processes that can obscure problems until they grow into large-scale patterns. The cost of these weaknesses accumulates slowly. Families may experience years of higher fees, less efficient allocations, delayed rebalancing, or inconsistent administrative processes without realizing the long-term impact on preservation and planning outcomes.

For Canadian families building long-term wealth, these events raise important questions about the alignment between advisor incentives and investor outcomes. Many investors begin to reflect on practical questions such as whether their advisor is compensated through commissions, whether there are proprietary product incentives, how often portfolios are reviewed, how transitions are handled, and what oversight exists behind the scenes. These reflections help families understand whether their model is structured around stewardship or sales.

Canadian families, entrepreneurs, and wealth stewards often reach a point where clarity matters more than salesmanship. They begin to look past product menus, past quarterly hype, and past sales-driven advice. They look instead for governance, discipline, and alignment. This is the space where the fiduciary discretionary model stands apart from suitability-based brokerage structures.

A fiduciary discretionary model is not simply a different compensation structure. It is a different worldview. It places stewardship ahead of transactions. It requires institutional processes. It demands alignment. It replaces sales incentives with governance. It changes the relationship between the advisor and the investor from product seller to portfolio steward.

Below is a detailed examination of the core strengths of a fiduciary discretionary model and the structural contrast it creates with suitability-based brokerage frameworks.

Suitability-based advisors may earn commissions when clients purchase investments. A mutual fund sale, an insurance policy, a structured product, or a packaged investment can generate immediate compensation. The investment may be considered suitable, but suitability is a low bar. It does not require the best option. It does not require the lowest cost. It does not require long-term alignment.

A fiduciary discretionary model removes these incentives entirely. Compensation comes from a transparent management fee. There are no commissions. There are no embedded trailers. There are no product quotas. The portfolio manager’s revenue does not increase by selling a particular product. That means decisions revolve around the client’s long-term interests, not the firm’s short-term margins.

This is a structural shift that reduces conflict. It places investor outcome ahead of product distribution.

In a suitability-based brokerage model, much of the investment decision-making rests with individual advisors. They choose products. They interpret research. They assess risk. They manage transitions. Even with good intentions, these processes can vary widely in quality and discipline.

A fiduciary discretionary model uses an investment committee, often composed of professionals with backgrounds in institutional asset management. Decisions are made collectively. Asset allocation, risk control, and portfolio structure follow formal processes. There is consistency. There is accountability. There is governance.

The committee reviews market environments, evaluates opportunities, examines correlations, and ensures the portfolio remains aligned with its mandate. This framework reduces the influence of personal biases and prevents sales incentives from shaping the portfolio.

A suitability-based advisor cannot act without client approval. Every trade requires consent. Every rebalancing effort requires contact. Every tactical move requires communication. In periods of volatility, this can delay action for days or even weeks. When advisors must reach hundreds of clients individually, opportunities can evaporate before action is taken. This constant need for client authorization can also create the illusion of a high level of service, since frequent calls and check-ins appear proactive, even though the underlying structure limits the advisor’s ability to manage risk in real time. 

A fiduciary discretionary manager has a different mandate. Clients grant authority to manage within the boundaries of the investment policy. This allows real-time execution. It allows immediate risk reduction. It allows timely rebalancing. It prevents emotional reactions from driving poor decisions.

This structure is particularly valuable during periods of market stress when clarity and speed determine long-term outcomes.

Suitability-based brokerage firms often rely on in-house products. These products generate internal revenue. They may include mutual funds, managed portfolios, structured notes, or packaged private products. While these products can be suitable, the incentive to promote them can create bias in the advice process.

A fiduciary discretionary model uses open architecture. This means the firm does not restrict portfolios to proprietary products. It chooses strategies based on merit rather than margin. It selects best-in-class managers, whether internal or external. This gives investors broader access to public markets, private markets, real assets, and non-correlated opportunities.

For Canadian families interested in diversification, open architecture broadens the toolkit dramatically.

Suitability-based structures often combine advice, products, and custody under the same roof. That can blur accountability. It can make it harder for clients to understand what they are paying. It can make it difficult to distinguish between product costs, advisor compensation, and firm-level margins.

A fiduciary discretionary model separates advice from custody. Assets are held by a large, regulated custodial institution. Fees are disclosed clearly. Clients know what they pay. They can review statements easily. They can audit performance. They can verify holdings.

This transparency strengthens trust. It gives clients control. It ensures accountability.

Suitability-based advisors often focus on product suitability and short-term goals. Their model is not designed to integrate long-horizon planning deeply into the investment approach. Many families need more than product recommendations. They need structures that protect wealth for decades.

A fiduciary discretionary model integrates tax planning, retirement planning, estate planning, risk management, and intergenerational strategy into a single coordinated lens. This structure is ideal for families who define wealth not as consumption, but as legacy.

Many fiduciary discretionary firms are built by professionals who previously managed pensions, family offices, or institutional mandates. Their experience in governance-heavy environments shapes their culture. They value compliance. They value oversight. They value transparency.

This creates a different relationship with clients. Trust is not assumed. It is built through structure, process, and integrity.

When a suitability-based system fails, the consequences fall on families. Excess charges. Missed discounts. Redundant fees. Supervision gaps. Disjointed transitions. Regulatory interventions arrive years after harm has occurred.

When a fiduciary discretionary structure is designed and executed properly, these vulnerabilities do not occur in the same way. Fees are not tied to product sales. Risk is managed through an institutional process. Oversight is embedded into the architecture. Clients do not wait for regulators to uncover problems that internal processes should have prevented.

The contrast is structural. One model is built on transactions. The other is built on stewardship. These distinctions align naturally with the broader principles we discuss in our Four Pillars of Asset Security™ framework, where long-term governance and structural clarity form the foundation of wealth protection rather than product selection or short-term decision making.

The Investor Seeking Clarity

Investors who face recurring errors and unexpected fees begin to question the reliability of the system. They look for a model that prioritizes their interests with discipline. Their trust is weakened when they experience multiple issues over long periods.

They recognize that suitable advice is not the same as the best advice. They begin to examine alignment more closely.

The Family Committed to Legacy

Entrepreneurs, business founders, and multigenerational families look further ahead. They want structure. They want continuity. They want governance. They need a model they can rely on for decades, not just one market cycle.

Their priority is preservation. Their focus is stability. Their goal is legacy.

The fiduciary discretionary model aligns with this worldview. It elevates stewardship above sales. It protects capital across generations.

Canadian investors are beginning to see the suitability model for what it is. It was never designed for deep stewardship. It was never built to manage generational wealth. It was created as a minimum standard, a regulatory threshold that allows advisors to recommend products that meet basic criteria, even if those products are not the most cost-effective or strategically aligned.

Suitability allows commissions. Suitability allows product-driven incentives. Suitability allows internal revenue structures to influence decisions. Suitability allows system errors to persist when oversight is inconsistent.

None of these characteristics serves the long-term interests of Canadian families who are trying to build and protect wealth across multiple generations.

A fiduciary discretionary model solves these structural weaknesses by design. It removes the incentive to sell. It removes embedded conflicts. It forces alignment. It prioritizes governance. It strengthens accountability. It creates a foundation for disciplined, multi-decade planning.

For many, the question is no longer whether suitability is flawed. The real question is whether families can afford to rely on a system that repeatedly shows its limits. The long-term cost of remaining in a suitability model extends beyond fees. It affects decision-making speed, planning coherence, administrative accuracy, and the consistency of oversight that families depend on during uncertain markets.

For Americans

The sanctions in the United States reveal that even large brokerage firms operating under suitability standards can experience repeated breakdowns. These issues raise questions about how advice is delivered, how fees are applied, and whether systems protect the client consistently.

American investors benefit when they evaluate their advisor’s regulatory framework. Is the advisor compensated through commissions? Is the advisor required to act as a fiduciary? Does the firm rely on proprietary products? Does the system prioritize sales or stewardship?

The answers shape long-term outcomes.

For Canadians and International Investors

The CIRO findings show that system weaknesses can remain undetected for years, even at major firms with strong brand recognition. These events demonstrate that suitability does not guarantee oversight strength. They reinforce why many families move toward discretionary, fiduciary-governed structures that emphasize transparency and governance.

Canadian investors are increasingly choosing stewardship models that align with long-term preservation. They see that suitability models expose them to risks that do not appear immediately, yet compound over time.

For Families Building Generational Wealth

Suitability introduced unnecessary risk. Fiduciary discretion removes it.

Families who view wealth as a legacy require a structure that supports that legacy. They require governance that endures. They require an advisor whose incentives match their goals. They require a long-range lens that stretches past a single decade.

A fiduciary discretionary model gives families that foundation.

There is a path forward for investors who want clarity. The financial world does not need to be defined by hidden fees, unsuitable transitions, or oversight failures. Investors can choose a different foundation. They can choose a structure. They can choose alignment. They can choose a model built on stewardship rather than sales.

When investors adopt a fiduciary discretionary structure, the relationship changes. It becomes about governance. It becomes about discipline. It becomes about transparency. It becomes about long-term preservation rather than short-term product placement. These themes reflect the broader principles we discuss in It Starts With Gold™, where structural clarity and disciplined stewardship form the basis of long-term preservation.

This matters in an era shaped by inflation pressures, geopolitical instability, regulatory gaps, and rapid shifts in global markets. Families who want to secure their legacy need more than investment products. They need architecture that protects them through cycles.

For those who value stability and integrity, this model offers more than returns. It offers peace of mind.

We can make a difference when we choose structures that protect us instead of systems that extract from us. We go into great detail on real solutions for families, entrepreneurs, and wealth builders who want strength instead of fragility, clarity instead of confusion, and control instead of uncertainty.

The contrast between suitability-based models and fiduciary discretionary oversight highlights a larger truth about wealth preservation. Families who want structural clarity and long-term stability benefit from organizing their assets according to a hierarchy of security, not short-term performance or market trends. This is the approach we describe as Owning Assets in Order of Asset Security, a framework that prioritizes the strongest assets first and protects those that are most vulnerable.

Our team of professionals assists clients in structuring their wealth using four pillars that form the foundation of long-term financial certainty:

1. 1. 1. Gold and Precious Metals That Hold Real, Tangible Value: Physical metals operate outside the financial system, providing a foundation of real value when currencies weaken or financial intermediaries face stress. They serve as the anchor that supports every other asset class.
      2. Alternative Investments That Reduce Systemic Risk: These include private real estate, private credit, and non-public market assets that generate income independent of public market volatility. Their lower correlation to traditional markets adds stability during periods of turbulence.
      3. Private Portfolio Management That Lowers Counterparty Exposure: Professional discretionary management introduces discipline, governance, and structure. It reduces reliance on mass-market institutions and aligns decision-making with long-term stewardship rather than short-term product distribution.
      4. Mutual Life Insurance Instruments That Protect Capital and Individuals: Participating whole life contracts issued by mutual insurers create stability, preserve capital, and provide tax-advantaged growth, liquidity, and estate planning benefits. They function as a long-term defensive pillar, especially during economic stress.

In It Starts With Gold™, we explain how these four pillars operate as a unified system to strengthen wealth across generations. Each pillar plays a distinct role: precious metals preserve purchasing power, alternative investments provide real diversification, private portfolio management establishes institutional oversight, and mutual life insurance protects capital while offering long-term certainty. Together, they create a balanced structure that helps families remain secure when one or more parts of the economy are tested.

👉 Book Your Complimentary Review to learn how to structure your wealth around the Four Pillars of Asset Security.

Stay informed. Stay prepared. Act while choice still exists.

The urgency of these themes mirrors the message we discuss in our number one international best-selling book, It Starts With Gold™, co-authored by Peter J. Merrick, TEP® and Adrian C. Spitters, CFP®. In the book, we reveal how structural truth, disciplined stewardship, and clarity of ownership create the foundation for long-term wealth preservation. Visit www.ItStartsWithGold.com.

👉 Sign up today for The Merrick Spitters Reset Report™ to receive a digital copy of our international bestseller, It Starts With Gold™, our white paper, Last Asset Standing™, and early updates on our upcoming book, Killing Crypto™.

Prefer a hard copy? Order It Starts With Gold™ on Amazon today.

1. Edward Jones settles client overcharging case. Investment Executive. 2025
2. CIRO sanctions Edward Jones. Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization. 2025
3. FINRA orders refunds related to mutual fund fee rebates. FINRA and Wealth Management. 2024
4. NASAA announces a seventeen-million-dollar multi-state settlement. North American Securities Administrators Association. 2025
5. SEC supervisory order regarding Edward Jones. FINRA Membership Continuance Notice SD 2414. 2025
6. Advisor.ca coverage of Edward Jones overcharging case. Advisor.ca. 2025

This publication is for general information and educational purposes only. It is not intended to provide financial, legal, tax, or investment advice, and it should not be interpreted as a recommendation, endorsement, or solicitation to purchase or sell any financial product, security, insurance contract, or real estate. The views expressed represent general commentary based on publicly available information at the time of publication. These views may change as market conditions, regulatory frameworks, or economic circumstances evolve.

Readers should not rely on this material to make financial decisions without consulting a qualified professional who can assess their unique objectives, financial situation, risk tolerance, and needs. All investments involve risk, including the potential loss of principal. Past performance is not indicative of future results, and changes in legislation, taxation, regulation, or market conditions can materially affect outcomes.

The authors provide professional services only through their respective regulated affiliations. The information in this article does not constitute individualized advice and is not intended to replace a personalized financial plan, legal opinion, tax assessment, or insurance needs analysis. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information presented, no guarantee is offered or implied. For guidance specific to your circumstances, please consult a licensed financial advisor, portfolio manager, tax professional, or legal representative.