Angela A. Hung, Katherine G. Carman, Jennifer Cerully, Jeff Dominitz, Kathryn

 
 
Research Report 
Investor Testing of Form CRS Relationship 
Summary 
Angela A. Hung, Katherine G. Carman, Jennifer Cerully, Jeff Dominitz, Kathryn 
Edwards 
 
 
November 2018 
Prepared for United States Securities and Exchange Commission 
 
This report has been reviewed and edited but has not gone through RAND publication production processes which may result in 
formatting changes, especially to tables and graphics.RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research 
clients and sponsors.  is a registered trademark.  The Securities and Exchange Commission has expressed no view 
regarding the analyses, findings, and conclusions contained in this Report, which does not necessarily reflect the views of the 
Commission, the Commissioners, or staff of the Commission. 
  

 
 ii 
Table of Contents 
Figures............................................................................................................................................ iii 
Tables ............................................................................................................................................. iv 
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 
Background............................................................................................................................................... 1 
Objective and Approach ........................................................................................................................... 1 
2. Survey ......................................................................................................................................... 2 
Background............................................................................................................................................... 2 
ALP Survey Platform ............................................................................................................................... 2 
Survey Questionnaire ............................................................................................................................... 3 
Sample Description .................................................................................................................................. 3 
Survey Results .......................................................................................................................................... 7 
Summary................................................................................................................................................. 35 
3. In-Depth Interviews .................................................................................................................. 37 
Interview Methods .................................................................................................................................. 37 
Participants ............................................................................................................................................. 38 
Analysis of Interview Discussions ......................................................................................................... 40 
Themes Emerging from Section-by-Section Review of Relationship Summary and Comparison  
to ALP Survey Results ..................................................................................................................... 40 
Cross-Cutting Themes Applying to Multiple Sections or the Entire Relationship Summary ................ 47 
Summary................................................................................................................................................. 49 
4. Review of Findings ................................................................................................................... 50 
References ..................................................................................................................................... 52 
Appendix 1: Relationship Summary Screen Shots from ALP Survey ......................................... 53 
Appendix 2: Supplemental Tables ................................................................................................ 71 
Appendix 3: Interview Recruiting Script .................................................................................... 100 
Appendix 4: Interview Survey .................................................................................................... 107 
Appendix 5: Sample Relationship Summary for Interviews ...................................................... 108 
Appendix 6: Interview Protocol .................................................................................................. 113 
 
  

 
 iii 
Figures 
Figure 2.1. Opinions About the Most and Least Informative Sections ........................................ 11 
Figure 2.2. Length and Difficulty of Section on Types of Relationships and Services ................ 13 
Figure 2.3. Length and Difficulty of Section on Obligations ....................................................... 14 
Figure 2.4. Length and Difficulty of Section on Fees and Costs .................................................. 15 
Figure 2.5. Length and Difficulty of Section on Conflicts of Interest .......................................... 16 
Figure 2.6. Length and Difficulty of Section on Additional Information ..................................... 17 
Figure 2.7. Length and Difficulty of Section on Key Questions to Ask ....................................... 18 
Figure 2.8. Comfort Level with Key Questions to Ask ................................................................ 20 
Figure 2.9. Likelihood of Asking Supplemental Questions .......................................................... 22 
Figure 2.10. Length of the Relationship Summary ....................................................................... 23 
Figure 2.11. Question-and-Answer Format .................................................................................. 23 
Figure 2.12. Helpfulness of the Side-by-Side Comparison Format .............................................. 24 
Figure 2.13. Likelihood of Clicking on Hyperlinks ...................................................................... 25 
Figure 2.14. Mode of Delivery of the Relationship Summary ..................................................... 26 
Figure 2.15. When to Receive the Relationship Summary ........................................................... 27 
Figure 2.16. Delivery of Changes to the Relationship Summary ................................................. 28 
Figure 2.17. Likelihood of Looking Up Disciplinary History ...................................................... 29 
Figure 2.18. Likelihood of Looking Up Disciplinary History—Reasons ..................................... 30 
Figure 2.19. Helpfulness of the Relationship Summary ............................................................... 31 
Figure 2.20. Prior Review of Documents ..................................................................................... 32 
Figure 2.21. Preferences over Types of Documents ..................................................................... 33 
Figure 2.22. Agreement with Statements about Use of Relationship Summary .......................... 35 
Figure A1: First Screen of Relationship Summary from ALP Survey ......................................... 53 
Figure A2: Second Screen of Relationship Summary from ALP Survey ..................................... 53 
Figure A3: Third Screen of Relationship Summary from ALP Survey........................................ 54 
Figure A4: Fourth Screen of Relationship Summary from ALP Survey ...................................... 54 
Figure A5: Fifth Screen of Relationship Summary from ALP Survey ......................................... 55 
 
  

 
 iv 
Tables 
Table 2.1. Respondent Demographics ............................................................................................ 5 
Table 2.2. Investor Groups.............................................................................................................. 9 
Table 2.3. Opinions about Section Length.................................................................................... 10 
Table 2.4. Opinions about Section Difficulty ............................................................................... 12 
Table 3.1: Sample Characteristics by Interview Location ............................................................ 38 
Table 3.2. Investment Experience by Interview Location ............................................................ 39 
Table 3.3.  Experience with Financial Professionals by Interview Location................................ 39 
Table A1. Correlations Among Opinions about Section Length and Section Difficulty ............. 71 
Table A2. Opinions about Section Length Conditional on Opinions about Section Difficulty ... 71 
Table A3. Opinions about Section Length and Difficulty Conditional on Being Most or  
Least Informative .................................................................................................................. 72 
Table A4. Opinions about Section on Types of Relationships and Services ................................ 72 
Table A5. Opinions about Section on Obligations to You ........................................................... 74 
Table A6. Opinions about Section on Fees and Costs .................................................................. 75 
Table A7. Opinions about Section on Conflicts of Interest .......................................................... 77 
Table A8. Opinions about Section on Additional Information ..................................................... 78 
Table A9. Opinions about Section on Key Questions to Ask ....................................................... 80 
Table A10. Comfort with Asking Key Questions ......................................................................... 82 
Table A11. Likelihood of Asking Other Key Questions .............................................................. 83 
Table A12. Opinions about Length of Relationship Summary..................................................... 87 
Table A13. Preference for Question-and-Answer Format ............................................................ 87 
Table A14. Helpfulness of Side-by-Side Comparison .................................................................. 88 
Table A15. Likelihood of Clicking on Hyperlinks ....................................................................... 89 
Table A16. Preference for Relationship Summary Format .......................................................... 91 
Table A17. Preference for Receipt of Relationship Summary ..................................................... 92 
Table A18. Preference for Receipt of Material Changes to Relationship Summary .................... 93 
Table A19. Likelihood of Looking Up Disciplinary History ....................................................... 94 
Table A20. Reasons Why Would Not Look Up Disciplinary History ......................................... 95 
Table A21. Helpfulness of Relationship Summary ...................................................................... 96 
Table A22. Past Review of Documents ........................................................................................ 97 
Table A23. Prospective Review of Documents ............................................................................ 98 
Table A24. Agreement with Statements about Helpfulness of Relationship Summary ............... 99 
 
 

 
 1 
1. Introduction 
Background 
Individual investors often rely on the advice of financial professionals in making investment 
decisions. Financial professionals who provide investment advice include broker-dealers (BDs), 
investment advisers (IAs), or professionals who are dually registered as both. However, past 
research has shown that investors are confused about how these types of financial professionals 
differ in terms of services offered, fees charged, and legal standards and obligations (e.g., see 
Hung et al. (2008) and Scholl et al. (2018).  
On April 18, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted to propose a 
package of rules and interpretations intended to improve the quality and transparency of 
relationships that retail investors have with IAs and BDs, while preserving access to different 
types of advice relationships and investment products. As part of those proposed rules, the SEC 
would require IAs and BDs to provide a Relationship Summary to clients and customers to 
inform them about the relationships and services the firm offers, the standard of conduct, the fees 
and costs associated with those services, and conflicts of interest the firm may have. 
Objective and Approach 
The SEC’s Office of the Investor Advocate engaged the RAND Corporation to conduct a 
nationwide survey and qualitative interviews of investors to gather feedback on a sample 
Relationship Summary (see Appendix 1 for the sample Relationship Summary). In particular, 
RAND researchers designed and fielded the survey through nationally representative American 
Life Panel (ALP) to collect information on the opinions, preferences, attitudes, and level of self-
assessed comprehension of the U.S. adult population with regard to a sample Relationship 
Summary. As a complement to the survey, the RAND team also conducted qualitative interviews 
to obtain further insights related to the reasoning and beliefs behind individuals’ attitudes toward 
the Relationship Summary. This report presents the results of those data collection efforts.   
Chapter 2 presents results from the survey fielded using the RAND ALP. We discuss 
reported opinions about each section of the Relationship Summary, format and delivery 
preferences, likelihood of looking up disciplinary histories, and overall usefulness of the 
Relationship Summary.    
Chapter 3 describes the results of a series of in-depth interviews conducted with investors in 
Denver, Colorado, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The interviews complement the survey data by 
providing qualitative feedback on the Relationship Summary to better understand the reasoning 
and beliefs that underlie individuals’ reported preferences.  
Chapter 4 summarizes the findings from Chapter 2 and 3.

 
 2 
 
2. Survey 
Background 
RAND researchers conducted a nationwide survey—henceforth, the “Relationship Summary 
Survey”—of households to gather feedback on a sample Relationship Summary. In particular, 
the RAND team designed and fielded the Relationship Summary Survey through RAND’s 
nationally representative American Life Panel (ALP) to collect information on the opinions, 
preferences, attitudes, and level of self-assessed comprehension of the U.S. adult population with 
regard to a sample Relationship Summary. We sampled the 1,816 panel members who 
previously completed the survey on the Retail Market for Investment Advice—henceforth, the 
“Investment Advice Survey”—described in Scholl et al. (2018). 
In this chapter, we describe the ALP survey platform and design of the questionnaire used for 
the Relationship Summary Survey. We then discuss the sample design, response rates, and 
survey weights, before presenting the results of the survey. 
ALP Survey Platform 
The ALP is a nationally representative probability-based panel of approximately 3,400 
active, regularly interviewed respondents, ages 18 and older. Respondents answer surveys 
online; through these surveys, the ALP is regularly used to provide a picture of the U.S. adult 
population.
1
 
Most ALP panelists have their own Internet access; those without access have been provided 
a computer and/or an Internet subscription by the ALP. Socioeconomic and demographic 
information is available and periodically updated for every panel member (e.g., age, 
race/ethnicity, education, marital status, household size, household income, and employment 
status). More than 450 surveys have been conducted using the ALP on a variety of topics, 
including financial decisionmaking, saving, and investing. One advantage of the ALP is that 
results can be linked to past surveys using the same respondents, as we do here, making use of 
responses to the Investment Advice Survey described in Scholl et al. (2018). 
                                                 
1
 For further details, see Pollard and Baird (2017) and Scholl et al. (2018).   

 
 3 
Survey Questionnaire 
The Relationship Summary Survey questionnaire began by asking the respondent to read a 
sample Relationship Summary for a fictitious, dually registered advisory firm. The text of the 
Relationship Summary was broken up into five separate screens, with the first four screens 
corresponding to the first four sections of the Relationship Summary—“Types of Relationships 
and Services,” “Our Obligations to You,” “Fees and Costs,” and “Conflicts of Interest”—and the 
final screen containing sections on “Additional Information” and “Key Questions to Ask.” In 
addition, the respondent could click on a hyperlink at any time while completing the survey to 
open up a copy of the entire Relationship Summary for further review. Respondents were then 
asked to provide their opinions and to assess their level of comprehension of the Relationship 
Summary. The survey was not designed to objectively assess comprehension of the document. 
The survey questions covered the following subject areas: 
 Opinions about the length, importance, and ease of understanding of each 
section of the Relationship Summary—that is, the six sections describing 
relationships and services, obligations, fees and costs, conflicts of interest, additional 
information, and questions to ask.  
 Preferences on the format and delivery of the Relationship Summary, such as the 
question-and-answer format, side-by-side comparison, links to web pages, and the 
mode and timing of delivery.   
 Comfort level with and likelihood of asking key questions. 
 Likelihood of looking up disciplinary history. 
 Opinions about the usefulness of the Relationship Summary, including in 
comparison to “longer documents (such as an investment adviser’s Form ADV or a 
broker-dealer’s account opening agreement).” 
The text of survey questions and response categories is detailed in the discussion below. 
Screen shots from the survey for each section of the Relationship Summary are presented in 
Appendix 1 along with a printout of the questionnaire. 
Sample Description 
Sample Design, Survey Response, and Weights 
The sample available for the Relationship Summary Survey consists of 1,816 adult 
individuals who were invited to participate in the Investment Advice Survey, were found to be 
eligible to complete the survey, and ultimately did complete the survey, as described in Scholl et 
al. (2018). Respondents to the Investment Advice Survey were screened to determine their 
suitability for answering that survey; in particular, only respondents who were “primarily 
responsible for making financial plans and decisions, including investment decisions,” either 
solely or along with other adults in the household, were eligible to complete the survey.  

 
 4 
The results presented here largely use sample weights. The constructed weights are intended 
to provide reasonable approximations of values for the U.S. adult population and the various 
subpopulations of interest to the current study. The process of constructing the weights for the 
1,816 respondents to the Investment Advice Survey in order to account for the sample design 
was described in detail in Scholl et al. (2018). For the present analysis, we revise the weights to 
account for nonresponses to this survey, as described below. 
Of the 1,816 individuals who were invited to complete this interview, 1,624 logged in to start 
the survey, while 1,460 of them completed the survey, for a response rate of 80.4 percent. Of the 
164 individuals who logged in but failed to complete survey, more than half dropped out before 
submitting an answer to the first question,
2
 about half of the remainder dropped out before 
completing the second set of questions,
3
 and the rest dropped out at some point thereafter. 
The median completion time for the survey as a whole was approximately 20 minutes and 
30 seconds,
4
 with a median of more than 4 minutes spent going through the initial five screens of 
Relationship Summary Survey text.
5
 Respondents tended to spend more time on the first 
screen—“Types of Relationships and Services”—than on any other screen, with a median of 
76 seconds, followed by the third screen (“Fees and Costs,” 46 seconds), the second screen 
(“Obligations,” 32 seconds), the final screen (“Additional Information and Key Questions,” 
27 seconds), and the fourth screen (“Conflicts of Interest,” 22 seconds). Recall that, throughout 
the remainder of the survey, respondents were prompted to click on a hyperlink to review a copy 
of the entire Relationship Summary. Time spent reviewing the document via this hyperlink is not 
reflected in the timing statistics reported above. 
To account for nonresponses to this survey interview, either from failure to log in to start the 
survey or from failure to complete it, we used the method of maximum likelihood to estimate a 
model of response probabilities that vary with the respondent’s sex, education, age, and 
household income, as well as whether the respondent participated in the Hung et al. (2008) ALP 
                                                 
2
 Question L1: “Is the Relationship Summary too long, too short, or about right?”   
3
 Question L2: “For each section listed below, please think about how the information is presented. Would you add 
more detail, keep as is, shorten, or delete?” followed by Questions L2a through L2f concerning each of the six 
sections of the Relationship Summary Survey.   
4
 This is full completion time, bearing in mind that such times are only indicative of online surveys because each 
respondent administers the survey questionnaire at his or her own pace.   
5
 The ALP computer server hosting the survey suffered a temporary malfunction that caused screen-specific timing 
information to be lost for 254 (or 17 percent) of the completed surveys. The median completion time of 4 minutes 
and 10 seconds for the Relationship Summary Survey screens pertains to the 1,206 respondents with complete 
information. The median completion time for the survey as a whole does not vary significantly across these two 
groups, with a median of 20 minutes and 1 second for the smaller group that is missing screen-specific timing 
information and a median of 20 minutes and 36 seconds for the larger group that has screen-specific timing 
available. 

 
 5 
survey administered in 2007.
6
 We use these nonresponse weights to adjust the sample weights 
constructed in our previous study. The adjustment is small relative to the variation in the original 
sample weights, with no weight adjusted down by more than 9 percent or up by more than 
27 percent. 
Demographics 
Respondent demographics for the Relationship Summary Survey sample are described below 
in the first two columns of Table 2.1. The ALP sample is older and more highly educated than 
the U.S. population as a whole. Therefore, the age and education distribution in the analysis 
sample changes notably in the third column when weights are applied in order to better match up 
the sample distribution to the population distribution. For comparison, the shaded column in the 
middle of the table reports Current Population Survey estimates of the U.S. adult population 
distribution. The age difference between the weighted and unweighted distributions arises in part 
because the Investment Advice Survey oversampled respondents to the 2007 survey. In 2011 and 
2012, the ALP recruited a “Vulnerable Population Recruitment Cohort” of panel members drawn 
from vulnerable groups and minorities (Pollard and Baird, 2017). This cohort, which now 
constitutes about one-third of the active ALP sample, tends to be younger and have lower 
educational attainment than the remainder of the ALP sample.
7
 In the remainder of the analysis, 
except where noted, we focus on weighted distributions.  
Table 2.1. Respondent Demographics 
Attribute 
Respondents Who Completed the 
Relationship Summary Survey 
(N=1,460) 
Current 
Population 
Survey 
(CPS) 
Estimates
8
 
  
Sample Who Completed the 
Investment Advice Survey 
(N=1,816) 
  
N Unweighted Weighted N Unweighted Weighted 
                                                 
6
 Respondents to this 2007 survey were oversampled in the Investment Advice Survey, as described in Scholl et al. 
(2018).   
7
 It is important to understand that weighting of survey responses is statistical in nature, not normative. It is related 
to the respondent’s probability of being selected into the panel and responding to an invitation, and it is conducted 
for the purposes of providing valid approximations to a given population or subpopulations. These weights do not 
ascribe normative notions of “importance,” but rather to help us to make reasonable statements about populations 
and subpopulations of interest.  Thus, it is not that one observation has a higher weight than another because it is 
“more important,” but rather because the chances of completing the survey are different.   
8
 Current Population Survey estimates derived from “Table 1: Educational Attainment of the Population 18 Years 
and Over, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 2017” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017) and from “HINC-01. 
Selected Characteristics of Households, by Total Money Income in 2016” (U.S. Census Bureau, undated) for 
household income. 

 
 6 
Attribute 
Respondents Who Completed the 
Relationship Summary Survey 
(N=1,460) 
Current 
Population 
Survey 
(CPS) 
Estimates
8
 
  
Sample Who Completed the 
Investment Advice Survey 
(N=1,816) 
  
N Unweighted Weighted N Unweighted Weighted 
Gender 
Male 672 46% 48% 
48% 
819 45% 49% 
Female 778 54% 52% 
52% 
997 55% 51% 
Age 
30 or younger 57 4% 16% 
23% 
72 4% 15% 
31–40 173 12% 21% 
17% 
232 13% 21% 
41–50 178 12% 14% 
16% 
258 14% 15% 
51–60 373 26% 20% 
17% 
448 25% 20% 
61 or older 679 47% 29% 
26% 
806 44% 29% 
Household Income 
Less than 
$25,000 
260 18% 21% 
21% 
329 18% 21% 
$25,000–
$49,999 
352 24% 22% 
22% 
431 24% 23% 
$50,000–
$74,999 
301 21% 21% 
17% 
385 21% 20% 
$75,000–
$99,999 
158 11% 9% 
12% 
204 11% 10% 
$100,000 or 
more 
387 27% 27% 
28% 
465 26% 26% 
Educational Attainment 
High school 
diploma or less 
206 14% 38% 
40% 
259 14% 38% 
Some college 498 34% 27% 
29% 
627 35% 28% 
Bachelor’s 
degree or more 
756 52% 35% 
31% 
930 51% 34% 
 
The entries in Table 2.1 indicate that the Relationship Summary Survey response rates did 
not vary much with these respondent attributes. In particular, the unweighted percentages for 
each category of sex, income, and education in the present survey are within one percentage 
point of the corresponding statistic for our previous survey, reported on the right side of the 
table. More variation is seen with age, where the representation of the 41–50 age group falls 
from 14 percent to 12 percent of the present sample, while the age 61-or-older group 
representation rises from 44 percent to 47 percent. These groups had response rates of 69 percent 
and 84 percent, respectively, whereas each of the other groups listed in the table had a response 

 
 7 
rate in the range from 75 percent to 83 percent. The sample weights adjust for this variation in 
response rates, yielding weighted statistics in the third column of the table that differ from the 
corresponding entry for the Investment Advice Survey in the final column by no more than 
1 percentage point. 
Survey Results 
In the following sections, we organize the discussion of results in line with the subject areas 
of the survey: opinions about each section, format and delivery preferences, disciplinary history, 
and usefulness of the Relationship Summary. In each section, we assess the distribution of 
survey responses given by the sample as a whole and we also present some comparison of 
response distributions across subgroups determined by responses given in previous interviews. 
Appendix 2 contains a comprehensive set of results across subgroups. The general pattern is 
one of qualitatively similar findings across groups. Notable exceptions to this pattern are detailed 
below. 
We define one set of subgroups according to indicators of investment and advice experience 
reported in the Investment Advice Survey. In particular, each respondent household is defined to 
be either an investor or a noninvestor. As in Scholl et al. (2018), we define investors as any 
respondent who identified their household as owning at least one type of investment account 
(i.e., an employer-sponsored retirement account; a nonemployer sponsored retirement account, 
such as an IRA; a college savings investment account; or some other type of investment account, 
such as a brokerage or advisory account), or owning at least one type of investment asset (i.e., 
mutual funds, exchange-traded funds or other funds, individual stocks, individual bonds, 
derivatives, or annuities). 
According to our weighted estimates, about 74 percent of adults live in a household that 
invests.
9
 In many instances below, we compare survey responses given by investors with 
responses given by noninvestors.  
We also compare responses across subgroups of investors. For that purpose, we divided 
investor group households into four mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories according to 
whether or not they (1) currently receive financial advice services
10
 and (2) report holding a 
nonemployer sponsored retirement account (e.g., an IRA or some other type of investment 
account, such as a brokerage or advisory account).
11
 These divisions capture two different 
                                                 
9
 The corresponding statistic from the Investment Advice Survey is 73 percent.   
10
 Those classified as currently receiving financial advice services reported in the Investment Advice Survey as 
using at least one of the following services: recommendations about investment strategies, recommendations about 
specific financial investment products, recommendations about what types of investment accounts to open, 
household financial planning, financial planning for retirement, or financial planning for educational expenses. 
11
 This classification excludes the following two types of accounts reported in the Investment Advice Survey: 
employer–sponsored retirement account and college savings investment account.   

 
 8 
dimensions of household investment experience—that is, experience with financial advice and 
experience with more involved types of investment accounts.  
 
  

 
 9 
Table 2.2. Investor Groups 
Investor Group 
Investor 
Has 
Nonemployer– 
Sponsored 
Retirement 
Account or 
Other 
Investment 
Account 
Currently 
Receives 
Financial 
Advice 
Respondents 
Who Completed 
the Relationship 
Summary 
Survey 
N Weighted 
0 Noninvestor 
No No 
Yes or 
No
12
 
329 26% 
1 Investor 
Less Involved Account 
Types, No Advice 
Yes No No 300 25% 
2 Investor 
Less Involved Account 
Types, Receives Advice 
Yes No Yes 159 14% 
3 Investor 
 More Involved Account 
Types, No Advice 
Yes Yes No 295 16% 
4 Investor 
More Involved Account 
Types, Receives Advice 
Yes Yes Yes 377 20% 
 
 
Table 2.2 describes the weighted distribution of survey respondents across these four investor 
groups, numbered 1 through 4, as well as the noninvestor group, labeled as group 0. Results in 
Appendix 2 are tabulated separately for each group. In the discussion below, we occasionally 
compare paired groups of investors, either those currently receiving advice (groups 2 and 4) 
versus those reporting no such advice (groups 1 and 3) or those with the more involved types of 
accounts (groups 3 and 4) versus those reporting no such accounts (groups 1 and 2). 
We also report in the appendix on variation in response patterns with previously reported 
educational attainment of the respondent—high school diploma or less, some college education, 
or bachelor’s degree or more. We discuss notable findings on this variation below.  
Opinions about Each Section of the Relationship Summary 
After reviewing the Relationship Summary, respondents were asked to assess the length of 
each section. As reported in Table 2.3, the most common recommendation for each section is to 
keep the length “as is,” ranging from 43 percent to 62 percent of respondents. The share selecting 
“shorten” ranged from 23 percent to 36 percent, “add more detail” ranged from 9 percent to 
                                                 
12
 Among the 329 respondent households classified as noninvestors, 19 were classified as receiving financial advice 
service based on reports in the Investment Advice Survey. 

 
 10 
29 percent, and “delete” never totaled more than 4 percent. We discuss these results in more 
detail below in the analysis of each section of the Relationship Summary. 
Table 2.3. Opinions about Section Length 
Please think about how the information is presented. Would you add more detail, keep as is, 
shorten, or delete? 
Section 
Add 
More 
Detail 
Keep 
As Is Shorten Delete 
Types of Relationships and Services 8.8% 56.2% 34.5% 0.6% 
  
1.2% 2.2% 2.2% 0.3% 
Our Obligations to You 16.4% 58.7% 23.7% 1.2% 
  
1.5% 2.2% 2.0% 0.5% 
Fees and Costs 29.7% 42.9% 26.3% 1.1% 
  
1.9% 2.2% 2.1% 0.4% 
Conflicts of Interest 22.0% 47.5% 28.3% 2.2% 
  
1.8% 2.2% 2.0% 0.6% 
Additional Information 9.3% 50.8% 35.9% 3.9% 
  
1.4% 2.2% 2.1% 0.8% 
Key Questions to Ask 12.0% 61.6% 23.5% 2.9% 
  
1.6% 2.3% 2.0% 0.7% 
NOTE: Weighted statistics presented (N=1,460). Standard errors are in italics 
 
 
After assessing the length of each section, respondents were asked to select the two most 
informative and two least informative sections with respect to “helping you decide which types 
of investment accounts and services are right for you.” Note that that this question asked about 
how informative each section is in its current form. Therefore, this assessment may not capture 
how informative a section on this topic could be if it were presented differently. Furthermore, a 
section may be helpful for making a decision without being perceived as informative per se, such 
as the “Key Questions to Ask” section, which asks questions intended to help the client acquire 
information from the financial professional rather than directly from the text of the section. The 
results are summarized in Figure 2.1 and discussed in detail below. 

 
 11 
Figure 2.1. Opinions About the Most and Least Informative Sections 
In helping you decide which types of investment accounts and services are right for you, 
which two sections would be the most/least informative? 
 
NOTE: Weighted statistics presented (N=1460). Each respondent chose up to two “most informative” and two “least 
informative” sections. 
 
Table 2.4 reports on respondent assessments of the difficulty of understanding each section. 
The most common response to each question is the neutral category of “just right,” which ranges 
from 39 percent to 51 percent of responses. The majority of the remaining respondents describe 
each section as either “easy” (19 percent to 29 percent) or “difficult” (10 percent to 31 percent), 
with 4 percent to 15 percent describing each section as “very easy,” and 1 percent to 5 percent 
describing each section as “very difficult.”   
  
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Relationships/ServicesObligations to YouFees and CostsConflicts of InterestAdditional InfoKey Questions
Most InformativeLeast Informative

 
 12 
Table 2.4. Opinions about Section Difficulty 
Please assess the ease or difficulty in understanding each of the sections. 
 
Section 
Very 
Easy Easy 
Just 
Right Difficult 
Very 
Difficult 
Types of Relationships and Services 7.9% 24.4% 45.5% 20.7% 1.6% 
  
1.2% 2.2% 2.2% 1.5% 0.4% 
Our Obligations to You 8.8% 22.3% 45.9% 21.5% 1.4% 
  
1.6% 1.9% 2.2% 1.6% 0.4% 
Fees and Costs 4.8% 20.4% 39.2% 31.2% 4.3% 
  
1.0% 2.1% 2.1% 1.9% 0.8% 
Conflicts of Interest 4.1% 19.3% 43.1% 31.0% 2.4% 
  
0.6% 2.1% 2.2% 1.9% 0.6% 
Additional Information 8.9% 21.3% 50.7% 17.2% 2.0% 
  
1.4% 1.7% 2.2% 1.4% 0.4% 
Key Questions to Ask 14.7% 28.4% 45.8% 9.6% 1.5% 
  
1.6% 2.0% 2.2% 1.2% 0.5% 
Note: Weighted statistics presented (N=1,460). Standard errors are in italics. 
 
Opinions about section length and difficulty tend to be correlated across sections. For 
example, those who report that one section should be shortened or deleted tended to report that 
other sections should be shortened or deleted, and those who found one section to be difficult 
tended to find other sections to be difficult as well. These relationships may be summarized 
using correlation coefficients, which may range from –1 (perfect negative correlation) to +1 
(perfect positive correlation). As reported in Table A1 in Appendix 2, the correlations range from 
0.30 to 0.57 for responses to the questions on section length and from 0.22 to 0.65 for the 
questions on section difficulties. In each case, at least two-thirds of the statistics exceed 0.40. 
Relative to these correlations across sections, weaker correlations are found between 
opinions about a section’s difficulty and opinions about that section’s length. Positive 
correlations—for example, reports of more difficultly are associated with reports that the section 
should be shortened or deleted—are found for the following four sections: “Types of 
Relationships and Services” (0.21), “Our Obligations to You” (0.12), “Additional Information” 
(0.19), and “Key Questions to Ask” (0.17).  
In contrast, the correlations are negative and very close to zero for “Fees and Costs” (–0.03) 
and “Conflicts of Interest” (–0.01). Note that Table 2.3 indicates that these are the two sections 
most frequently suggested to have additional detail, and Table 2.4 indicates that these are also 
the two sections most frequently reported to be “difficult” or “very difficult.” Further illustrating 
the complexity of relationships among opinions about different aspects of a section, Figure 2.1 
shows that the “Fees and Costs” section is also the most likely to be selected as one of the two 

 
 13 
most informative sections, despite these perceptions of difficulty. Additional results presented in 
Appendix 2 indicate that (1) “Fees and Costs” is the only section for which those who found it to 
be “difficult” or “very difficult” were more likely to suggest adding more detail (41 percent) than 
shortening or deleting (31 percent)
13
 and (2) respondents who selected “Fees and Costs” as one 
of the most informative sections were more likely to find it to be difficult or very difficult 
(38 percent) than to find it to be “easy” or “very easy” (24 percent) to understand. 
Next, we discuss the responses to these questions on section length, most and least 
informative sections, and section difficulty for each section in turn. This discussion proceeds 
according to the order in which each section is presented in the Relationship Summary. With 
respect to opinions about section difficulty, the discussion tends to highlight the proportion of 
respondents who found a section to be “difficult” or “very difficult,” although a majority of 
respondents did not find this to be the case for any section. We adopted this approach in order to 
highlight opportunities for possible revisions to the Relationship Summary to increase its 
usefulness to those investors who would find it difficult to understand in the form presented to 
the survey respondents. 
Types of Relationships and Services 
More than half of respondents (52 percent) selected the “Types of Relationships and 
Services” section as one of the most informative for deciding which types of investment accounts 
and services are right for them. While this result constitutes the second largest share for any 
section, about one-third of respondents reported that the section should be shortened or deleted 
and almost one-quarter described it as “difficult” or “very difficult.” 
Figure 2.2. Length and Difficulty of Section on Types of Relationships and Services 
  
                                                 
13
 As discussed in Chapter 3, the in-depth interviews may provide insight on this survey finding. Some interview 
participants expressed that they found the “Fees and Costs” section to be long, but they also expressed that they 
would like to see information on the specific fees that they would owe. 
8.8%
56.2%
34.5%
0.6%
2.2a. Length
Add More DetailKeep As IsShortenDelete
32.2%
45.5%
22.3%
2.2b. Difficulty
(Very) EasyJust Right(Very) Difficult

 
 14 
Figures 2.2a and 2.2b describe the distribution of responses to these questions on the length 
and difficulty of this section. These results detail the weighted distribution of responses for the 
full sample of respondents. We also assessed variation with responses given in past surveys 
describing investor experience and educational attainment, as detailed in Appendix 2. The results 
on section importance, length, and difficulty are qualitatively similar across all of the respondent 
subgroups analyzed. The most notable, statistically significant variation arises with educational 
attainment, with the share selecting this section as one of the two most informative rising from 
43 percent for those with no more than a high school diploma to 51 percent for those with some 
college education to 64 percent for those with a bachelor’s degree or more. In each case, the 
“Types of Relationships and Services” section constitutes the second most likely to be picked as 
one of the two most informative sections, trailing only the section on fees and costs. 
Our Obligations to You 
Almost one-third of respondents selected the “Obligations to You” section as one of the two 
most informative, while almost one-quarter select it as one of the two least informative. A 
similar difference of opinion arises across subgroups of the population, with some notable 
variation across levels of educational attainment. In particular, the likelihood of selecting this 
section as one of the most informative decreases from 37 percent for those with no more than a 
high school diploma to 32 percent for those with some college education but no bachelor’s 
degree to 24 percent for those with at least a bachelor’s degree. 
Figure 2.3. Length and Difficulty of Section on Obligations 
  
Figures 2.3a and 2.3b detail the weighted distribution of responses concerning the length and 
difficulty of the obligations section for the full sample of respondents. As with each of the other 
sections, the modal responses are “keep as is” and “just right,” respectively. The results on 
16.4%
58.7%
23.7%
1.2%
2.3a. Length
Add More DetailKeep As IsShortenDelete
31.1%
45.9%
22.9%
2.3b. Difficulty
(Very) EasyJust Right(Very) Difficult

 
 15 
section length and difficulty are qualitatively similar across all of the respondent subgroups 
assessed. 
Fees and Costs 
The “Fees and Costs” section is notable for being the most likely to be selected as one of the 
most informative (73 percent) and least likely to be selected as one of the least informative 
(11 percent). This pattern is strongest among those who reported having more involved types of 
investment accounts, such as a nonemployer–sponsored retirement account or other investment 
account (81 percent most informative versus 5 percent least informative), whereas the pattern is 
not as strong for other investors (70 percent versus 12 percent) and is weakest for noninvestors 
(66 percent versus 16 percent). These differences are statistically significant at the 5-percent 
level.
14
 Similar differences are found when comparing these opinions across groups defined by 
educational attainment, with the “Fees and Costs” section more likely to be selected as one of the 
most informative and less likely to be selected as one of the least informative by those with more 
education. 
Figure 2.4. Length and Difficulty of Section on Fees and Costs   
  
 
While the “Fees and Costs” section appears to be considered the most informative, it is also 
the section for which the largest share of respondents suggest adding more detail and the largest 
share find it to be either difficult or very difficult to understand. These results are detailed in 
Figure 2.4. Notably, investors were more likely than noninvestors to suggest adding more detail 
                                                 
14
 Chi-square tests have p-values of 0.01 and less than 0.01 for “most informative” and “least informative,” 
respectively. 
29.7%
42.9%
26.3%
1.1%
2.4a. Length
Add MoreKeep As IsShortenDelete
25.3%
39.2%
35.5%
2.4b. Difficulty
(Very) EasyJust Right(Very) Difficult

 
 16 
to the section on fees and costs (31 percent versus 25 percent) and to find the section to be 
difficult or very difficult to understand (38 percent versus 27 percent).
15
 
Conflicts of Interest 
The “Conflicts of Interest” section was more than twice as likely to be selected as one of the 
two least informative sections (36 percent) than as one of the two most informative (15 percent). 
This differential holds for almost all of the population subgroups analyzed. 
Figure 2.5. Length and Difficulty of Section on Conflicts of Interest 
  
 
Figure 2.5a indicates that almost half of respondents suggest keeping the section length as is, 
and the majority of the remainder suggest shortening or deleting rather than adding more detail. 
Note that the share who suggest adding more detail is second only to the “Fees and Costs” 
section (22 percent versus 30 percent).  
The “Conflicts of Interest” section is also second only to the “Fees and Costs” section in 
terms of reported difficulty. Figure 2.5b indicates that about one-third of respondents found the 
“Conflicts of Interest” section to be difficult or very difficult to understand. Investors are once 
again more likely to perceive difficulty (35 percent) than noninvestors (30 percent), but here 
there is notable variation within the investor group. In particular, this differential between 
investors and noninvestors arises because investors who did not report receiving financial advice 
were more likely to find this section to be difficult to understand (39 percent) than were either 
investors who did report receiving advice (30 percent) or noninvestors (30 percent).  
                                                 
15
 Chi-square tests indicate that the difference in shares suggesting adding detail is not statistically significant at the 
5-percent level (p-value of 0.13), whereas the difficulty differential is significant (p-value less than 0.01). 
22.0%
47.5%
28.3%
2.2%
2.5a. Length
Add MoreKeep As IsShortenDelete
23.4%
43.1%
33.5%
2.5b. Difficulty
(Very) EasyJust Right(Very) Difficult

 
 17 
Additional Information 
The “Additional Information” section is the most frequently selected as one of the two least 
informative sections (66 percent), nearly doubling the share selecting any other specific section. 
In fact, this section is selected as one of the least informative by a majority of members of each 
investor and education subgroup, whereas no other section is selected as one of the least 
informative by a majority of any such subgroup. Moreover, no more than 9 percent of any of 
these subgroups selected this section to be one of the two most informative, with only 3 percent 
of the full sample selecting it as one of the most informative. 
Figure 2.6. Length and Difficulty of Section on Additional Information 
 
    
 
The results in Figure 2.6a on the length of the additional information section are consistent 
with the finding that it is considered to be one of the least informative sections, with 40 percent 
suggesting that the section be shortened or deleted, but still a majority suggest keeping the length 
as is. Figure 2.6b indicates that difficulty understanding the section is not the issue. Only 
19 percent report that it is “difficult” or “very difficult” to understand, with little variation across 
subgroups. 
Key Questions to Ask 
The “Key Questions to Ask” section was more than twice as likely to be selected as one of 
the two least informative sections (36 percent) than selected as one of the two most informative 
(14 percent), and this differential holds for every investor and education subgroup analyzed. The 
share selecting it as one of the most informative increases with education level, from 12 percent 
for those with no more than a high school diploma to 14 percent for those with some college to 
16 percent for those with a bachelor’s degree. Similarly, the share selecting it as one of the least 
9.3%
50.8%
35.9%
3.9%
2.6a. Length
Add MoreKeep As IsShortenDelete
30.1%
50.7%
19.1%
2.6b. Difficulty
(Very) EasyJust Right(Very) Difficult

 
 18 
informative declines from 39 percent for high school group to 33 percent for those with some 
college education and 35 percent for those with a bachelor’s degree.
16
 
Figure 2.7. Length and Difficulty of Section on Key Questions to Ask 
 
  
 
While the survey responses do not indicate that the “Key Questions to Ask” section is 
particularly informative, Figures 2.7a and 2.7b indicate that only about one-quarter of 
respondents suggest that it should be shortened or deleted, and only 11 percent found it difficult 
to understand. The apparent incongruity may be explained by the purpose of the section—that is, 
to provide questions for the client to ask in order to elicit information from the financial 
professional rather than to directly provide information that will help the client make a decision.  
To get a better sense of how useful these key questions would be in eliciting such 
information, the survey included questions about how comfortable the respondent would be to 
ask each of the key questions: “very comfortable,” “somewhat comfortable,” “neutral,” 
“somewhat uncomfortable,” or “very uncomfortable.” For those key questions in which the 
respondent gave a report of “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable,” follow-up questions were 
asked concerning the source of this discomfort. Figure 2.8 summarizes results from the opening 
set of questions. 
At least two-thirds and up to 85 percent of respondents reported being “somewhat 
comfortable” or “very comfortable” asking any of the ten key questions, while no more than 
14 percent of respondents reported being “somewhat uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable.” 
In fact, the majority reported being “very comfortable” asking all but three questions, including 
                                                 
16
 Chi-square tests indicate that the distributions are not statistically significant at the 5-percent level (p-values over 
0.35). 
12.0%
61.6%
23.5%
2.9%
2.7a. Length
Add MoreKeep As IsShortenDelete
43.1%
45.8%
11.1%
2.7b. Difficulty
EasyJust RightDifficult

 
 19 
the following two questions that also generated the biggest proportions being “somewhat 
uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable”: 
1. Do you or your firm have a disciplinary history? For what type of conduct? (41 percent 
very comfortable, 14 percent somewhat or very uncomfortable) 
2. What is your relevant experience, including your licenses, education, and other 
qualifications? Please explain what the abbreviations in your licenses are and what they 
mean. (43 percent very comfortable, 11 percent somewhat or very uncomfortable). 
 

 
 20 
Figure 2.8. Comfort Level with Key Questions to Ask 
How comfortable would you be asking your financial professional the “Key Questions to 
Ask” provided in the Relationship Summary?
 
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
1. Given my financial situation, why should I choose an
advisory account? Why should I choose a brokerage
account?
2. Do the math for me. How much would I expect to pay
per year for an advisory account? How much for a typical
brokerage account? What would make those fees more or
less? What services will I receive for those fees?
3. What additional costs should I expect in connection
with my account?
4. Tell me how you and your firm make money in
connection with my account. Do you or your firm receive
any payments from anyone besides me in connection with
my investments?
5. What are the most common conflicts of interest in your
advisory and brokerage accounts? Explain how you will
address those conflicts when providing services to my
account.
6. How will you choose investments to recommend for my
account?
7. How often will you monitor my account’s performance 
and offer investment advice?
8. Do you or your firm have a disciplinary history? For
what type of conduct?
9. What is your relevant experience, including your
licenses, education, and other qualifications? Please
explain what the abbreviations in your licenses are and
what they mean.
10. Who is the primary contact person for my account,
and is he or she a representative of an investment adviser
or a broker-dealer? What can you tell me about his or her
legal obligations to me? If I have concerns about how...
Very comfortableSomewhat comfortableNeutralSomewhat uncomfortableVery uncomfortable

 
 21 
Respondents who reported being “somewhat uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” were 
asked to comment on the source of the discomfort, with response categories of “I don’t 
understand the question,” “I don’t think I would understand the answer,” “I don’t think it is an 
appropriate question to ask,” “I don’t know enough about investing to have a meaningful 
conversation about this issue,” or “Other reasons.” The modal response in almost every case was 
“I don’t know enough . . .” with response shares ranging from 25 percent to 43 percent.   
Only one response category other than “Other reasons” was ever selected by more than 
25 percent of respondents as a reason for not being comfortable asking the question. In 
particular, 37 percent of 176 queried respondents reported that question 8 regarding disciplinary 
history would not be “an appropriate question to ask,” whereas, in that case, only 25 percent 
reported “I don’t know enough . . . .” Question 9 regarding qualifications generated somewhat 
similar responses from 135 queried respondents, with 25 percent indicating it would not be 
appropriate question to ask and 28 percent questioning whether they know enough about 
investing. 
The survey also asked respondents to consider five supplemental key questions and report on 
the likelihood of asking each one. Figure 2.9 summarizes the results. In each case, the most 
common response is “very likely,” with response shares ranging from 47 percent to 65 percent. 
The first supplemental question, which addresses the amount of a $1,000 investment that would 
go to fees and costs, rather than being “invested for me,” yielded the most positive set of 
responses, with a total of 91 percent selecting “very likely” or “somewhat likely.” The other four 
questions yielded similar sets of responses, with about 80 percent selecting “very likely” or 
“somewhat likely.” 
  

 
 22 
Figure 2.9. Likelihood of Asking Supplemental Questions 
How likely would you be to ask your financial professional each of the following questions if 
they were included in the “Key Questions to Ask” section of the Relationship Summary?  
 
Preferences over Format and Delivery of the Relationship Summary 
Respondents were asked several questions about the format and delivery of the Relationship 
Summary. Next, we summarize the results. 
Format of the Relationship Summary 
The questions about the format of the Relationship Summary concern its total length, 
potential use of a question-and-answer format, and side-by-side comparisons. 
  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
If I give you $1,000 to invest, how much will go to
fees and costs, and how much will be invested for
me?
If I trade more investments in my brokerage
account, do you (my broker) make more money?
If I add more money or investments to my advisory
account, do you (my investment advisor) make more
money?
If I invest in funds created or managed by your firm,
do you or your firm make more money than if I buy a
fund created by (or managed by) someone else?
How do you (my broker or advisor) get paid?
Very likelySomewhat likelyNot too likelyNot at all likely

 
 23 
Figure 2.10. Length of the Relationship Summary 
Is the Relationship Summary too long, too short, or about right? 
 
 
The results in Figure 2.10 indicate that more than half of respondents believe the 
Relationship Summary is “too long,” with almost all of the remainder reporting that the length is 
“about right.” This pattern arises for each investor and education subgroup analyzed, with the 
share reporting “too short” as less than 3 percent. 
Figure 2.11. Question-and-Answer Format 
Would you prefer that the Relationship Summary be presented in a question-and-answer 
format? For example, the section titled “Types of Relationships and Services” would instead be 
titled “What Types of Services Does the Firm Provide?” 
 
 
 
As depicted in Figure 2.11, about 60 percent of respondents favored a question-and-answer 
format instead of the current format of most of the Relationship Summary sections. This majority 
56.9%
41.2%
1.8%
Too longAbout rightToo short
60.8%
39.2%
YesNo

 
 24 
opinion holds up across each investor and education subgroup. The percentage in favor decreases 
with education level, from 64 percent for those with no more than a high school diploma to 
63 percent for those with some college to 55 percent for those with at least a bachelor’s degree.
17
   
Figure 2.12. Helpfulness of the Side-by-Side Comparison Format 
Does the side-by-side comparison in the Relationship Summary help you to decide whether a 
broker-dealer or investment adviser account would be right for you? 
 
 
 
Figure 2.12 shows that 85 percent of respondents found the side-by-side comparisons to be 
helpful for the purposes of deciding between a BD and an IA. At least 77 percent of each 
investor and education subgroups responded affirmatively. Investors were more likely to respond 
affirmatively (88 percent) than were noninvestors (77 percent), and the percentage increases with 
education level, from 79 percent for high school diploma only to 86 percent for those with some 
college to 91 percent for bachelor’s degree or more.
18
 
Use of Hyperlinks Contained in Relationship Summary 
Respondents were also asked to consider whether they would use hyperlinks to additional 
information on financial professional services, fees, conflicts of interest, or to investor education 
materials. Figure 2.13 shows the results, which indicate that at least two-thirds of respondents 
reported being “somewhat likely” or “very likely” to use the hyperlink in each case. 
 
                                                 
17
 A chi-square test indicates that this variation is not statistically significant at the 5-percent level (p-value of 0.15). 
18
 Chi-square tests indicate that this variation is statistically significant at the 5-percent level (p-values of 0.01 or 
less). 
84.8%
15.2%
YesNo

 
 25 
Figure 2.13. Likelihood of Clicking on Hyperlinks 
If the Relationship Summary contained hyperlinks to the following types of additional 
information, how likely would you be to click on them? 
 
 
 
A potential hyperlink to information on fees generated the most interest, with 58 percent 
selecting “very likely” and another 32 percent selecting “somewhat likely” to click on it. A 
majority of both investors (60 percent) and noninvestors (53 percent) reported being very likely 
to click on a hyperlink to additional information on fees, as did a majority of respondents in each 
education subgroup (increasing with education level from 51 percent for the high school group to 
60 percent for some college to 64 percent for college graduates).    
No other potential hyperlink generated a majority with “very likely” usage among any 
investor or education subgroup. The lowest levels of “very likely” usage were for links to 
information on conflicts of interest (30 percent) and investor educations materials (25 percent). 
In both of these cases, noninvestors were more likely to report being “very likely” or “somewhat 
likely” to use the hyperlink (78 percent and 75 percent, respectively) than were investors 
(64 percent and 63 percent, respectively).
19
 
Delivery of the Relationship Summary 
Respondents were also asked about how and when they would prefer to receive the 
Relationship Summary. Much variation across the population is evident in Figure 2.14, which 
shows opinions about which mode of delivery would most likely lead the respondent to review 
the information in the Relationship Summary. About two-fifths reported that they would be most 
                                                 
19
 Chi-square tests indicate that this variation is statistically significant at the 5-percent level (p-values of less than 
0.01). 
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Information on Services
Information on Fees
Information on Conflicts of
interest
Investor Education Materials
Very LikelySomewhat likelyNot too likelyNot at all Likely

 
 26 
likely to review a paper document, one-fourth selected the firm’s website, one-fifth selected 
email, one-tenth did not know which would be the most likely, and less than one-tenth selected 
video.   
Figure 2.14. Mode of Delivery of the Relationship Summary 
In which format would you be most likely to review the information in the Relationship 
Summary? 
 
 
These distributions vary significantly across the investor and the education subgroups.
20
  
Investors who both currently receive financial advice and have consumer-directed types of 
investment accounts such as a nonemployer–sponsored retirement account or other investment 
account were the most likely to select paper (44 percent). Noninvestors were more likely to 
select “do not know” (18 percent) than were investors as whole (7 percent), or any subgroup of 
investors. Selecting “do not know” decreased with education level, from 17 percent for the high 
school diploma group to 8 percent for some college education 5 percent for the college 
graduates. On the other hand, selecting the firm’s website increased with education level, from 
19 percent for the high school group to 23 percent for some college education to 30 percent for 
the college graduates. 
  
                                                 
20
 Chi-square tests indicate that this variation is statistically significant at the 5-percent level (p-values of 0.01 or 
less). 
38.6%
19.2%
24.1%
7.3%
10.0%
0.8%
On PaperVia EmailOn Firm's WebsiteVideoDo Not KnowOther

 
 27 
Figure 2.15. When to Receive the Relationship Summary 
If you chose to work with a financial professional, when would you like to receive a copy of 
the Relationship Summary? Check all that apply. 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.15 shows that 70 percent of respondents reportedly would prefer to receive the 
Relationship Summary at the outset of the relationship (“i.e., before or at the time you first 
engage the investment professional”) and 50 percent would also prefer to receive an updated 
summary “whenever there is a material change in the Relationship Summary, such as a change in 
fees or commission structure.” The share ranges from 30 percent to 40 percent for each of the 
other three choices: “before the investment professional first recommends a transaction or 
investment strategy,” “periodically (e.g., quarterly, semiannually or annually),” and “upon 
request.” 
The shares for several of the response categories vary systematically with education level. 
Those with more education were more likely to prefer receipt at the outset of the relationship 
(56 percent for the high school group, 74 percent for some college education, 81 percent for 
college graduates), as well as to prefer receipt whenever there is a material change (39 percent 
for the high school group, 56 percent for some college education, 57 percent for college 
graduates).
21
 
                                                 
21
 Chi-square tests indicate that this variation is statistically significant at the 5-percent level (p-values of less than 
0.01). 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
At the outsetBefore first
recommendation
PeriodicallyUpon requestWhenever there
is a material
change

 
 28 
Some notable variation is also found across investor subgroups. For example, investors were 
more likely to prefer receipt at the outset of the relationship (74 percent) than were noninvestors 
(57 percent).
22
 In contrast, noninvestors were more likely to prefer receipt upon request 
(46 percent) than investors (36 percent).
23
 
Figure 2.16. Delivery of Changes to the Relationship Summary 
If you had an ongoing relationship with a financial professional, how would you like to be 
informed of material changes in the information in the Relationship Summary? Check all that 
apply. 
 
 
 
As depicted in Figure 2.16, nearly 70 percent of respondents would like to be informed of 
material changes to the Relationship Summary via “a complete updated Relationship Summary 
with the changes highlighted.” Less than half of the respondents reported that they would also 
like to receive any of the other three offered types of notification: “a notice containing only the 
text of the specific changes” (24 percent), “a notice providing a summary of the changes” 
(42 percent), or “a verbal explanation of the changes from my investment professional” 
(31 percent). 
Once again, the shares for several of the response categories vary systematically with 
education level. The share preferring receipt of a complete updated summary with changes 
                                                 
22
 A chi-square test indicates that this variation is statistically significant at the 5-percent level (p-values of less than 
0.01). 
23
 A chi-square test indicates that this variation is statistically significant at the 5-percent level (p-values of 0.04). 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Complete update with
changes highlighted
Notice with text of
specific changes
Notice with summary
of changes
Verbal explanation of
changes

 
 29 
highlighted increases from 65 percent to 69 percent to 73 percent as educational attainment 
increases from high school diploma to some college to bachelor’s degree, as does the share 
preferring a notice providing a summary of changes, from 37 percent to 44 percent to 46 percent, 
respectively.
24
 In contrast, the share preferring receipt of a notice containing only the text of the 
specific changes decreases with education, from 30 percent to 25 percent to 17 percent, 
respectively.
25
 
Disciplinary History 
The survey asks a pair of questions about investigating the disciplinary history of the 
financial professional or firm. The results are summarized in Figures 2.17 and 2.18. 
Figure 2.17. Likelihood of Looking Up Disciplinary History 
How likely would you be to look up the disciplinary history of your financial professional or 
firm based on the information in the Relationship Summary? 
 
 
 
More than 40 percent of respondents reported being very likely to look up the disciplinary 
history based on the information provided in the Relationship Summary, and another 35 percent 
reported being somewhat likely to look it up. Only 5 percent reported being not at all likely to do 
so. 
A follow-up question elicited reasons why the respondent may not look up the disciplinary 
history. The three offered reasons were “I don’t know where to get it,” “It would take too much 
time or effort,” and “This information is not very important to me.” Respondents could select 
                                                 
24
 Chi-square tests indicate that this variation is not statistically significant at the 5-percent level (p-values of 0.22 
and 0.15, respectively). 
25
 A chi-square test indicates that this variation is statistically significant at the 5-percent level (p-value of less than 
0.01). 
42.2%
34.5%
18.0%
5.3%
Very likelySomewhat likelyNot too likelyNot at all likely

 
 30 
any or all of those responses, as well as an open-ended “Other reason” response, or could instead 
select “I would definitely look it up.” Figure 2.18 depicts the results. 
Figure 2.18. Likelihood of Looking Up Disciplinary History—Reasons 
What are some reasons why you would not look up the disciplinary history? 
 
 
Two out of every five respondents reported that they would definitely look up the 
disciplinary history, but it is worth noting the one-quarter of those respondents had reported in 
the preceding question that they were something less than “very likely” to look it up. Among 
those respondents who did report a potential reason for not looking up the disciplinary history, 
more than 60 percent of them (37 percent of all respondents) cited a lack of knowledge about 
where to get the information and 30 percent of them (19 percent of all respondents) cited the 
time or effort required.  
The results are qualitatively similar across investor and education groups. However, investors 
(37 percent) were less likely to report that they would definitely look it up than were 
noninvestors (47 percent),
26
 and investors were more likely to cite the time or effort required as a 
reason for not looking it up (21 percent among investors versus 11 percent among 
noninvestors).
27
 The share of respondents citing time or effort also increases with education level 
(from 15 percent for the high school group to 17 percent for some college education to 
                                                 
26
 A chi-square test indicates that this variation is statistically significant at the 5-percent level (p-value of 0.04). 
27
 A chi-square test indicates that this variation is statistically significant at the 5-percent level (p-value of less than 
0.01). Restricting attention to just those respondents who did not report “I would definitely look it up,” 34 percent of 
investors cited the time or effort required, while 21 percent of noninvestors did so. 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
I don't know
where to get it
Too much time
or effort
Not very
important to me
Other reasonI would
definitely look it
up

 
 31 
24 percent for college graduates), as does the share citing a lack of knowledge about where to get 
the information (from 31 percent to 37 percent to 44 percent).
28
 
Usefulness of the Relationship Summary 
The survey concluded with a series of questions about how useful the Relationship Summary 
would be for the purposes of comparing accounts, making informed decisions, understanding key 
terms and conflicts of interest, and serving as the basis for a conversation. This section 
summarizes the results of responses to these questions.  
Figure 2.19. Helpfulness of the Relationship Summary 
If the SEC requires all BDs and IAs to provide this type of Relationship Summary to clients, 
would it help you . . . 
 
 
 
 
As depicted in Figure 2.19, more than 80 percent of respondents indicated that the 
Relationship Summary would help to compare accounts offered by a firm, compare accounts 
offered by different firms, and make more-informed decisions about investment accounts and 
services. Comparable majorities arise for each and every investor and education subgroup 
analyzed. The lowest levels of support, yet still more than 77 percent affirmative, arise for 
                                                 
28
 Chi-square tests indicate that this variation is not statistically significant at the 5-percent level in the former case 
(p-value of 0.11) and is statistically significant in the latter case (p-value of 0.03). 
87.5%
83.7%
89.6%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Compare accounts offered by a firm?
Compare accounts offered by different firms?
Make more informed decisions about which
types of investment accounts and services
are right for you?
YesNo

 
 32 
noninvestors and for those with a high school diploma or less education regarding help to 
compare accounts offered by different firms.   
After answering these questions, respondents were given the following information: 
Many of the topics included in the Relationship Summary are currently contained 
in longer documents (such as an investment adviser’s Form ADV or a broker-
dealer’s account opening agreement) that give you more details about services, 
costs, conflicts of interests, and other matters. 
 
Next, they were asked whether that had “ever reviewed an investment adviser’s Form ADV 
or a broker-dealer’s account opening agreement.” As depicted in Figure 2.20, more than half of 
all respondents (54 percent) indicated that had never reviewed either type of document, while 
another 20 percent did not know whether they had ever done so. This finding arises both for 
investors (51 percent neither document and 20 percent do not know) and for noninvestors 
(61 percent and 23 percent, respectively). 
Figure 2.20. Prior Review of Documents 
Have you ever reviewed an investment adviser’s Form ADV or a broker-dealer’s account 
opening agreement? Select one: 
 
 
 
 
Among investors who had reported receiving financial advice, 39 percent reported that they 
had not ever reviewed either type of document and 24 percent reported that they did not know. 
Another 13 percent of this group of investors reported that they had reviewed both types of 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Form ADVAccount opening
agreement
BothNeitherDo not know
All RespondentsInvestorsNon-Investors

 
 33 
documents, 23 percent reported reviewing just an account opening agreement, and 2 percent 
reported reviewing just a Form ADV.   
Among investors who reported holding more-involved investment account types, such as a 
nonemployer–sponsored retirement account or some other type of investment account, 
48 percent reported that they had not ever reviewed either type of document and 19 percent 
reported that they did not know. Another 12 percent of this group of investors reported that they 
had reviewed both types of documents, 18 percent reported reviewing just an account opening 
agreement, and 2 percent reported reviewing just a Form ADV.   
Putting these results together, it is clear that most respondents do not recall reviewing either 
of these types of documents.
 29
 After collecting this information, the survey asked which types of 
documents—longer ones, such as a Form ADV or account opening agreement, or the 
Relationship Summary—the respondent would be likely to read when choosing a financial 
professional, account type, or firm. Figure 2.21 summarizes the results. 
Figure 2.21. Preferences over Types of Documents 
When choosing a financial professional, account type, or firm, which of the documents are 
you likely to read? 
 
 
 
Whereas Figure 2.20 shows that half of all investors reported having reviewed neither a Form 
ADV nor an account opening agreement in the past and another 20 percent reported not knowing 
whether they had ever done so, Figure 2.21 shows that about 70 percent of all respondents and of 
                                                 
29
 Note that a member of the household other than the respondent may recall having reviewed the documents. 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Only the longer
documents
Only the
Relationship
Summary
BothDo not knowWould not read
any of the
documents
All RespondentsInvestorsNon-Investors

 
 34 
all investors reported that they would be likely to read either both types of documents or only the 
Relationship Summary when choosing a financial professional in the future. Just 2 percent of 
investors and 1 percent of noninvestors reported being likely to read only the longer documents, 
whereas 29 percent of investors and 13 percent of noninvestors were likely to read only the 
Relationship Summary. Less than 5 percent of investors and of noninvestors reported that they 
would not read any of the documents. 
About one-quarter of respondents did not know which they were likely to read, including 
20 percent of investors and 30 percent of noninvestors. This share decreases with education 
level, from 32 percent for those with a high school diploma to 25 percent of those with some 
college to 18 percent of those with a bachelor’s degree. The group with the highest level of 
education has the largest share likely to read only the Relationship Summary at 35 percent, with 
the high school group at 17 percent and the group with some college education at 21 percent.
30
 
Finally, respondents were asked a pair of questions eliciting the extent to which they agree 
with statements that the Relationship Summary would help to understand key terms and conflicts 
of interest and that they would use it as a basis for a conversation. Figure 2.22 summarizes these 
results. 
  
                                                 
30
 A chi-square test indicates that the variation in response across education groups is statistically significant at the 
5-percent level (p-value of less than 0.01). 

 
 35 
Figure 2.22. Agreement with Statements about Use of Relationship Summary  
Please indicate whether you agree with the following statements: 
 
 
 
Respondents express considerable agreement with each of the two statements, with more 
than 75 percent reporting that they agree or strongly agree. Less than 4 percent disagree or 
strongly disagree with either statement. 
The results are qualitatively similar across investor and education subgroups. The share 
expressing agreement tends to increase with education level but does not fall below 68 percent 
for any of the three education subgroups. The share expressing disagreement does not exceed 
5 percent for any education or investor subgroup. 
Summary 
The Relationship Summary Survey was designed to collect information on the opinions, 
preferences, attitudes, and levels of self-assessed comprehension of the U.S. adult population 
with regard to a sample Relationship Summary. The survey was not designed to objectively 
assess comprehension of the document.  
28.7%
31.5%
47.7%
44.5%
20.2%
20.7%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
The Relationship Summary would help me
understand the key terms and conflicts of
interest that apply to the relationship with
the investment professional.
I would use the Relationship Summary as
the basis for a conversation with an
investment professional.
Strongly AgreeAgreeUndecidedDisagreeStrongly Disagree

 
 36 
Several general findings emerged from our analysis of the survey responses.  Respondents 
expressed generally positive assessments of the format and content of the Relationship 
Summary.  
Nearly 90 percent of respondents opined that the Relationship Summary would help them 
make more-informed decisions about investment accounts and services. More than three out of 
every four respondents agreed with statements characterizing the Relationship Summary as 
helpful in understanding key terms and conflicts of interest and as serving as the basis for a 
conversation with an investment professional. Opinions of respondents with less education or 
less investment experience were less positive than those of respondents with more education or 
investment experience, but opinions from all groups were still generally positive. 
Eighty-five percent of respondents found the side-by-side comparisons to be helpful for the 
purposes of deciding between a BD and an IA. Almost all of the respondents who reported that 
they would be likely to read any documents when choosing a financial professional or account 
type reported that they would read the Relationship Summary, alone or in addition to other 
documents. A majority of respondents reported that the Relationship Summary was too long. In 
the section-by-section questioning, however, the most common response was to keep the section 
length as is. 
With respect to the different topics covered in the Relationship Summary, information on 
fees and costs tends to be perceived as potentially the most helpful. The current “Fees and Costs” 
section is the most likely to be selected as one of the two most informative sections (and least 
likely to be one of the least informative), yet it is also the most likely section to be found as the 
most difficult to understand in its current form and to be recommended to have more detail 
added. Among current and potential key questions to ask, questions concerning fees and costs 
tended to generate the most interest. 
Respondents tended to express interest in the key questions more generally, typically 
reporting that they would be likely to ask the questions and would be comfortable doing so. 
Overall, respondents were split 60-40 in favor of using a question-and-answer format throughout 
the Relationship Summary. 

 
 37 
3. In-Depth Interviews 
To ascertain comprehension of the Relationship Summary and gain feedback from investors, 
we conducted a series of in-depth interviews with investors. In-depth interviews allow for a 
deeper dive into participants’ understanding and reasoning. However, because interview samples 
are small, the results cannot provide much insight into how understanding varies by subgroups 
(e.g., different racial/ethnic groups, age groups). Furthermore, interview participants may be 
hesitant to fully disclose their confusion or lack of understanding to a stranger (i.e., the 
interviewers). However, this is of minimal concern given that the interviewers were highly 
experienced in conducting interviews and focus groups and skilled at putting participants at ease 
(as indicated by participants’ willingness to indicate lack of knowledge at multiple points 
throughout the interviews). Notwithstanding these limitations, in-depth interviews allow us to 
obtain insights related to the reasoning and experiences behind individuals’ preferences and 
behaviors, and these qualitative data are a valuable complement to the nationally representative 
quantitative survey. 
We first describe our methodology for conducting the interviews (including our sample) and 
then describe our findings by section of the Relationship Summary, and then findings on the 
overall document. 
Interview Methods 
We conducted 16 interviews in Denver, Colorado, and 15 interviews in Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania, for a total of 31 interviews. To recruit our participants, we employed independent 
market research firms in each location. The market research firms used a standardized script we 
developed to invite investors by telephone to participate in an interview. We limited participation 
to those who currently hold stocks or mutual funds, and we set guidelines to achieve a sample 
that has a broad range of educational background, racial and ethnic characteristics, gender, age, 
and experience working with financial professionals (see Appendix 3 for script and eligibility 
criteria). Sixteen individuals were recruited to participate in each location.
31
 Upon arriving, 
participants completed a survey about their investment experience and experience with financial 
professionals, to provide descriptive information on the sample (see Appendix 4 for the full 
survey). 
During each interview, the interviewer used cognitive interview methods (Beatty and Willis, 
2007) to gather input from the participant. The interviewer presented the participant with a 
                                                 
31
 One recruited participant in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, did not appear for the interview. 

 
 38 
sample Relationship Summary (see Appendix 5 for the sample Relationship Summary), and 
explained that the participant would be asked to read through each section, and “think-aloud” as 
he or she read, sharing such thoughts as unfamiliar words or helpful phrases that he or she 
encountered while reading. If a participant had difficulty freely offering information, the 
interviewer would follow up with such questions as, “What do you believe this text is saying?” 
or “Were any parts of this section confusing? Which parts?” After the think-aloud exercise, the 
interviewer asked for feedback on the document as a whole, particularly asking about the 
organization of the document, the length of the document, the level of language used in the 
document, and the delivery method. Finally, the interviewer asked more general questions about 
comprehension and helpfulness of the form. As in the survey instrument, the interview protocol 
included some questions that provide a window into participants’ understanding of concepts 
introduced in the Relationship Summary, but the protocol was not designed to serve as a full 
assessment of participants’ objective understanding of the Relationship Summary. For example, 
the interviewer asked the participant to describe the differences between IAs and BDs based on 
the information in the Relationship Summary, and whether the information would be helpful in 
selecting a financial professional (see Appendix 6 for the full interview protocol).  
Two interviewers conducted interviews at each location. The interviews were audio-
recorded, and the recordings were transcribed. Immediately upon arriving, all participants were 
provided with information about the study and verbally consented to interview participation and 
audio-recording. 
Participants 
Sample characteristics, compiled based on responses to the recruiting script, are summarized 
in Table 3.1. The 31 participants in the two locations were 25 to 69 years old, with an average 
age of 44.3 years. Among these participants, 20 were female. The mix of racial and ethnic 
background included 24 white participants and seven participants from other racial and ethnic 
groups. Twenty participants hold a bachelor’s degree, and 16 are the sole financial 
decisionmaker in the household. Table 3.1 summarizes our sample.  
Table 3.1: Sample Characteristics by Interview Location 
Characteristic 
Denver 
(N=16) 
Pittsburgh 
(N=15) 
Overall 
(N=31) 
Age (mean) 40.2 48.7 44.3 
Male 6 5 11 
Female 10 10 20 
White 12 12 24 
Non-white and/or Hispanic 4 3 7 
Bachelor’s degree or more 11 9 20 
High school, some college, or associate’s degree 5 6 11 
Sole financial decisionmaker in household 8 8 16 
Shared responsibility for financial decisionmaking in household 8 7 15 

 
 39 
Characteristic 
Denver 
(N=16) 
Pittsburgh 
(N=15) 
Overall 
(N=31) 
NOTE: Age cells correspond to mean in years; all other cells provide the number of participants indicating each 
response during recruitment. 
 
Participants were asked in the survey about the types of investment accounts owned in their 
households and asked again about their experience with financial professionals. Table 3.2 
summarizes these financial characteristics by interview location.   
Table 3.2. Investment Experience by Interview Location 
 
In our sample, 24 participants report that their households hold employer–sponsored 
retirement accounts, 20 report that they hold other retirement accounts, seven report that they 
hold college savings accounts, and 17 report that they hold other types of investment accounts. 
When asked about working with financial service providers, 13 participants said that they 
currently work with a professional financial service provider for “advising, choosing, managing 
and/or planning your stock and/or mutual fund investments” and four participants said that they 
have in the past but not currently. When asked about the type of financial service provider they 
use or used, none reported that his or her financial service provider is a broker, seven reported 
that the financial service provider is an IA, four reported that the financial service provider is 
dually registered, and four reported that they do not know.
32
 Table 3.3 summarizes experience 
with financial professionals by interview location.   
Table 3.3.  Experience with Financial Professionals by Interview Location 
                                                 
32
 Two respondents reported “other.” 
Investment Type 
Denver 
(N=16) 
Pittsburgh 
(N=15) 
Overall 
(N=31) 
Employer-sponsored retirement account (e.g., 401(k), 403(b), SEP-IRA, or Thrift 
Savings Plan) 
15 9 24 
Other retirement investment account (e.g., traditional IRA or Roth IRA) 10 10 20 
529 Plan (college savings plan) 3 4 7 
Investment account not listed above (e.g., brokerage or advisory account) 8 9 17 
NOTE: All cells provide the number of survey respondents indicating that they have that type of account.  
 
Experience with Financial Professional 
Denver 
(N=16) 
Pittsburgh 
(N=15) 
Overall 
(N=31) 
Currently work with a professional financial service provider 5 8 13 
Previously worked with a professional financial service provider 2 2 4 
Financial professional that respondent works/worked with is    
 a broker-dealer 
0 0 0 
 an investment adviser 
3 4 7 
 both a broker-dealer and investment adviser 
2 2 4 

 
 40 
 
Analysis of Interview Discussions 
The main goal of analyzing the interview discussions was to provide qualitative insight into 
some of the findings from the survey section. We used thematic analysis to extract concepts that 
emerged across multiple interviews (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun and Clark, 2006). The analysis was 
led by two members of our research team.
33
 We extracted key information related to participants’ 
understanding of and reactions to each section of the Relationship Summary, as well as the 
general organization and format of the document. Based on this key information, we then 
independently identified themes across the interviews. We each generated a memo summarizing 
the themes we had identified. We then reviewed the memos and transcripts again, identifying 
quotes supporting each theme and ensuring that no themes were overlooked. Finally, we 
generated a description of each theme and accompanying supporting evidence.  
We did not calculate theme “prevalence” (i.e., a count of how many times a theme emerged 
across the interviews) for several reasons. First, the number of times that a theme is mentioned is 
not necessarily an indicator of how important or crucial it is (Braun and Clark, 2006). For 
example, two individuals could note a key point that is as important as one noted by 20 
participants. Second, the sample for the in-depth interviews was not intended to be representative 
of the general population of investors. Thus, the prevalence of themes among the interview data 
set does not provide information on how prevalent the theme would be among the general 
population of investors. We do note that to qualify as a theme, we ensured that a pattern occurred 
in at least two interviews to avoid potentially highlighting points that were idiosyncratic to a 
single participant and his or her reaction to the Relationship Summary. 
Themes Emerging from Section-by-Section Review of Relationship 
Summary and Comparison to ALP Survey Results  
In this section, we present themes that arose during the think-aloud exercise and follow-up 
probes that participants engaged in while reviewing the Relationship Summary, and we compare 
them with ALP survey results. We provide quotes from participants to support each theme. 
                                                 
33
 These team members were Angela Hung and Jennifer Cerully. Both observed several of the interviews but did not 
conduct the interviews. 
 don’t know 
1 3 4 
 other 
1 1 2 
NOTE: All cells provide the number of survey respondents indicating that they worked with that type of 
professional.  
 

 
 41 
Throughout this chapter, direct quotes from interview transcripts appear in italics and within 
quotation marks, and our clarifications of a quote or phrase appear in brackets. 
Types of Relationships and Services Section 
As discussed in the previous chapter, more than half of ALP survey respondents named the 
“Types of Relationships and Services” section as one of the most informative sections of the 
Relationship Summary (see Figure 2.1), and more than 45 percent felt that the level of difficulty 
or ease of this section was “Just Right” (see Table 2.4). When we questioned interview 
participants about their interpretation of the “Types of Relationships and Services” section, 
participants had a general understanding that this section describes two different types of 
services or accounts that a client would choose. For example, one participant described the main 
point of this section as “ . . .you can provide services in a brokerage account, an investment 
adviser account or, or both at the same time. So, I think it’s just laying out the options that are 
available.” Another participant similarly expressed ,“they’re trying to breakdown the type of 
account that would be best for the consumer, a brokerage, or investment, um, advisory or both.” 
However, more than 22 percent of ALP respondents reported that they found the “Types of 
Relationships and Services” section to be “difficult” or “very difficult” (see Figure 2.2 in 
Chapter 2). Some themes from the interview discussions provide insight on areas with which 
interview participants struggled. 
Participants Reacted Strongly to the Notion of Being Offered Limited Investment Options 
The last bullet point in each column in the Relationship Summary was most noteworthy to 
participants. On the “Brokerage Account” column, the last bullet point describes that the firm 
offers a limited selection of investments. On the “Advisory” Account column, the corresponding 
bullet point discloses that advice covers a limited selection of investments. Some participants felt 
that the phrase “limited selection” raised more questions, such as questions on what types of 
investments are not offered: “Like what else am I missing then?” This bullet point also raised 
questions on why the firm offers a limited selection: “I would wanna know more about why 
there's a limited selection,” “So I would be curious to know, um, especially on the brokerage 
side, you know, why do they offer limited selection?” or “ . . . how did you pick your limited 
selection?” Participants also wondered as to the motivation of the firm for disclosing the limited 
selection: “why would they . . . it’s almost like they're admitting . . . why would there be, um, 
other firms that provide a wider range of choices at lower costs?” and “I guess it’s good that 
they’re honest and say that you have a very limited range of investments and you, you have a, 
other options elsewhere.” 
Participants Noted Several Concerning Phrases or Phrases that Needed Further Definition 
Some participants made particular mention of the third bullet on the “Broker-Dealer 
Services” column of the Relationship Summary, particularly the phrases “additional services” 

 
 42 
and “might pay more.” For example, one participant said, “Or they can also, in the third bullet, 
they can offer additional services to assist you and monitor the performance, but you may pay 
more. I would like to know up front what is included and what I’m gonna pay extra for.” Another 
participant expressed “I understand what this is about, but I think . . . but you might pay more . . 
. I think it, it should be said in a, a way that's not so like unclear. . . . But when I hear something 
like, ‘But you might pay more,’ I’m concerned.” 
Some participants indicated that further definitions of the bold, italicized words in this 
section would be helpful: “transaction-based fee,” “asset-based fee,” “discretionary account,” 
and “non-discretionary account.” 
“Our Obligations to You” Section 
As with the “Relationships and services” section, almost half of ALP survey respondents 
found the “Our Obligations to You” section to be “just right” in terms of difficulty or ease in 
understanding (see Table 2.4 in Chapter 2). Interview participants generally understood that this 
section describes legal obligations of financial services firms. Participants expressed such 
thoughts as: “This is their legal obligations to me as a client,” or “There are laws that they have 
to go by and . . . here is the laws that are protecting you.” 
Less than a third of ALP respondents named this section as one of the most important 
sections, and almost one-quarter named this section as one of the least important sections (see 
Figure 2.1 in Chapter 2). Furthermore, almost 23 percent found this section to be difficult or very 
difficult to understand (Figure 2.3 in Chapter 2). Interview discussions revealed that there were 
mixed interpretations to this section, and there was variation in the level of understanding of 
obligations and the term “fiduciary.” 
Participants Had Mixed Interpretations to this Section 
There were some mixed reactions to the interpretation of this section, with some participants 
feeling that the section was the company looking to protect itself, while others found it 
reassuring. Those who felt that the company was protecting itself said things like: “To me it’s, 
it’s your, sorry to be so blunt but it’s your CYA . . .” Some were skeptical about the conflicts of 
interest: “I just find it hard to believe that if there's conflicting interest, that someone is actually 
going to act in my best interest and place my interest [above theirs] . . . I mean because this is a 
business.” 
Other participants found this section reassuring and thought that clients’ best interests would 
be put first. For example, “they’re wanting to treat their customers or whoever they’re working 
with, um, fairly and just making sure that they’re not putting their own interest above, um, for 
your own. Not acting, you know, in a malicious way . . . it’s good that they're talking about 
conflicts of interest...and that they’re being cognizant of, of that happening. And...the kind of 
actions that they want to take in those situations.” Another participant said “. . . it seems like, for 
both of them, they’re kinda saying like, ‘We have your best interests at heart, and our . . .’ you 

 
 43 
know, ‘You’re . . . You’re gonna be paying us to make sure that you get the . . . best service, and 
we help you make the best decisions that we . . . know how to make, and we won’t just be . . . 
trying to make money off of you . . . .’” Another said that “. . . I like it because it shows that 
there’s an honestly, a truthfulness that is necessary.” 
Participants Varied in Their Understanding of Differing Obligations for Different Account Types 
Some participants felt that both the “Brokerage Account” and “Advisory Account” columns 
in the Relationship Summary were essentially conveying the same message: “I don't know, it's 
basically the same language, but um, the same but they just kind of word it differently. . . . Yeah, 
so it’s pretty much the same. But it’s just worded differently and they try to, to make the right 
side sound a little fancier.” However, other participants interpreted the section as conveying that 
advisory accounts have a different standard from brokerage accounts. For example, one 
participant said, “I took [it] though as on the investment adviser service side, they seem to be 
held to a higher standard. In terms of protecting the investor, um, basically because of them 
saying they’re held to a fiduciary standard. Whereas on the left side with the broker-dealer 
services, um you know, they’re just saying that they’re acting in your best interest.” Another 
participant, reading the last bullet point on how brokers will try to reduce conflicts of interest, 
said: “So that just made me a little confused at first and skeptical, and then I started to compare 
and contrast with the advisory account. Um, and really liked the way it was worded to say that 
they were gonna eliminate them.” 
Many Participants Did Not Understand the Meaning of the Word “Fiduciary” 
Some participants had never heard of the word, whereas others had heard it but did not know 
what it meant in this context. Others thought that fiduciary implies acting in best interest, and 
were then confused by the second bullet point under the “Advisory Account” column. For 
example, one participant said: “So, on the right, uh, um, my understanding of the word fiduciary 
is that the company would have to act in my best interest, which makes me question the second 
bullet point, which says that their interest and my interest could conflict.” Another participant 
said that he “thought that IAs [investment advisers] had fiduciary: I thought that there was a law 
that said that, uh, the, uh, advisor, uh, must have your best interest, uh, and then I thought that 
may have been, um, that law may have been removed recently . . . . Um, so I’m a, I'm a little bit 
confused on that. And, uh, you know, it’s the same with this second bullet point on the investment 
adviser.” 
“Fees and Costs” Section  
Results from the ALP survey show that the “Fees and Costs” section is most likely to be 
selected as one of the most informative and least likely to be selected as one of the least 
informative (see Figure 2.1). At the same time, this section was the most difficult for survey 

 
 44 
respondents to understand: Less than 40 percent found it “just right” and 36 percent found it 
“difficult” or “very difficult” (see Figure 2.4).   
Interview participants generally understood that this section provides information on the 
types of fees that they could possibly incur from brokerage or advisory accounts. They generally 
found the section to be important, but they also found the section to be overwhelming and had 
some difficulty with the language in the section.  
Participant Reactions Were Conflicted, with Some Finding the Section Overwhelming and 
Others Wanting More Information 
Many participants expressed that this section is overwhelming with the number of various 
types of fees, and at the same time felt that more information would be helpful. For example, one 
participant said, “Yeah, no it’s just a lot I think, you know, somebody reading through this it’d be 
like, oh my gosh. So, basically the way it lands if you just read it and don’t know what you’re 
doing is, there’s just a lot of fees. You know, no matter what you do.” The same participant later 
elaborated, “Well, I think for the, um, your typical layperson who doesn’t know, I think they’re 
gonna obviously want some explanation, further explanation.” Another participant said, “I'm 
going to be fee’ed to death . . . that’s what I'm getting from this. I’m going to be fee’ed to death 
regardless of whether I'm asking you to do anything for me or not, there’s going to be some sort 
of a fee associated. I kind of am glad that there aren't actual numbers in front of me cause that 
might confuse me even more. But then I kind of wish, okay, is this fee going to be this percentage 
or is this fee going to be that. But it might really overwhelm me, so . . . .” 
Approximately 90 percent of ALP survey respondents indicated that they would click on 
hyperlinks to additional information on fees if they were provided (see Figure 2.12). Several 
interview participants likewise expressed that they want more specific details on fees. In 
particular, they would like for fees to be quantified. As one stated: “Just give me an amount for 
the commission. Is it five dollars a trade? Or does it depend on the amount of shares that I'm 
buying?” Another said, “I think the more clearly outlined the specific fees are, the better 
understanding you have of it because . . . fees are inherent . . . to the nature, I think, of the 
industry” going on to compare the selection of an investment to other purchases, adding, “you 
know, if you’re price comparing, if you’re on Amazon, if you’re on anything, you’re going to be 
looking at the specific price you’re paying.” 
Participants Expressed Some Confusion and Concern About Fees Being Negotiable 
The bullet point about how fees are negotiable and may vary concerned participants, and 
many noted that it made them feel as if they may pay too much. For example, “And then I have 
an [online brokerage] account, and I know that . . . well, unless I'm missing out on something, 
but I don't think any of their fees are negotiable, so . . . Makes me kinda feel like . . . um . . . I 
don't know. I might not always be getting . . . as good of a deal as other people that might work 
with you guys more.” Another participant said: “I think the word negotiable is interesting . . . . 

 
 45 
Because like as I've been reading all of this, it seemed like everything would be very much like, if 
I make this percent of this sale, like very—like not really negotiable. Like that makes me feel like 
I could be like, well, you should get two percent of this. You know, like something where I could 
argue it—rather than that's just how it is.” And another participant said, “I'm also curious why 
they're negotiable and how . . . what . . . if you're telling me they're negotiable, why? I wouldn't 
try to negotiate them down . . . and what type of skill it would require for me to negotiate them 
down . . . or how low you would go.” 
Participants Appreciated Guidance on Minimizing Fees 
Several participants liked the final bullet points in each column in that they offer guidance on 
how to minimize fees: “I like the last bullet for both, just that it’s kind of like why something, 
why somebody might lean a certain way.” Another participant said, “Then the last bullet, from a 
cost perspective, you may prefer a transaction-based fee if you do not trade often or if you plan 
to buy and hold investments for longer periods of time. I think, again, that is refreshing . . . .” 
Participants Struggled with Terms in this Section 
Participants tended to struggle over the language in this section, even those that had further 
explanations or definitions. Words that participants flagged include “markup,” “markdown,” 
“load,” “surrender charges,” “wrap fee,” and “custody.” 
“Conflicts of Interest” Section 
ALP survey respondents were more likely to choose the “Conflicts of Interest” section as one 
of the least informative sections than as one of the most informative sections (see Figure 2.1). 
Furthermore, more than one-third of survey respondents found the section to be difficult or very 
difficult to understand (Figure 2.5).  
Interview participants generally understood that the purpose of this section is to inform the 
client about conflicts of interest. Some participants expressed appreciation that the firm was 
being transparent about its conflicts of interest, but many participants struggled with how to 
reconcile the information in this section with the previous “Our Obligations to You” section. 
Participants Felt that this Section Conveyed a Sense of Transparency or Honesty on the Part of 
the Firm 
Participants expressed that they appreciated that the firm was being transparent or honest 
about their conflicts of interest even if the conflicts made them feel uneasy. One participant, in 
reviewing the column on Brokerage Accounts, said, “There’s a lot there as far, um, a lot of 
transparency but also . . . it kinda makes me feel . . . a little bit concerned. Because like how do I 
know you're not gonna direct me to something because it’s gonna benefit you.” Another 
participant, when asked what the section was trying to convey, said, “I think it’s saying . . . 
We’re gonna be upfront and honest with you that, uh . . . we can . . . we are earning money by  

 
 46 
. . .  you know, convincing you to . . . buy and sell more, or especially to, um, buy certain 
products that might be managed by our firm, or, um, through accounts that are owned by our 
firm, so that we can make more money off of you.’” 
Participants Felt that this Section Contradicts the “Our Obligations to You” Section 
Many participants expressed confusion over how to reconcile “Conflicts of Interest” section 
with the earlier “Our Obligations to You” section. For example, one participant said, “. . . to me 
right away, I’d be like, hmm, like, what about that section where you said like, your obligations 
to me? Like this seems very contradicting.” Another participant also brought up the earlier 
section, “’Cause I think in the beginning it says something about . . . ‘So, we must act in your 
best interest and not place our interest ahead of yours when we recommend an investment.’” She 
then said that this section then sounds as if the firm would not act in the client’s best interest: 
“[The firm is] going to recommend, um, certain investments, mutual funds, that’s being managed 
by someone, you know, related to the firm, or offered by companies that pay them money. So, 
they’re not really, um, looking out for your best interest they’re looking out for theirs.” As 
another example, a different participant also noted that he felt the sections were contradictory: “I 
don't know, it seems . . . It seems to go against, uh . . . ‘Our Obligations to You,’ statement . . . 
where they’re saying, you know, ‘We have your best interests at heart,’ and then you start 
reading this, and . . . they’re saying, ‘Well, we don’t actually have your best interests at heart. 
We’re kinda . . . doing things so that we get paid.’” 
Another participant pointed out that the obligations section had said that any conflicts of 
interest would be reduced and disclosed. However, the conflicts section does not mention 
disclosing or reducing conflicts of interest: “Um, what I'm not reading in this is, how it would be 
disclosed to me that they have this. I know in the beginning it talked about disclosures earlier in 
the document and how they were gonna reduce those conflicts . . . .But in reading this conflict of 
interest, while I appreciate they gave me the information, I don’t see how they were gonna tell 
me that you know, we can make a profit, we may recommend certain things that are financially 
beneficial to us.” Likewise, another participant also expressed that more details on potential 
conflicts of interest would be helpful: “I think that . . . that it should be more specific as to how 
they’re . . . what . . . how, exactly, they're benefiting from potential conflicts of interest.” 
Key Questions to Ask 
Even though ALP survey respondents were more than twice as likely to choose this section 
as one of the least informative sections than as one of the most informative sections (see 
Figure 2.1), interview participants liked the questions. As noted earlier in Chapter 2, it is possible 
that the “Key Questions to Ask” section is chosen as “least informative” because the purpose of 
the section is not to introduce new information. Instead, it provides suggested questions to 
discussion with a financial service provider. Most interview participants said that they liked all 

 
 47 
of the questions, that they would ask these questions in meeting with a financial service provider, 
and did not suggest dropping any of the questions.  
Cross-Cutting Themes Applying to Multiple Sections or the Entire 
Relationship Summary  
In addition to the section-specific themes described above, a number of cross-cutting themes 
emerged that applied to the entire Relationship Summary or to multiple sections of it. 
Although Some Participants Identified Some Differences Between Brokerage and 
Advisory Accounts, Others Demonstrated Significant Misunderstanding.  
When asked about the differences between brokerage and advisory accounts, or which type 
of account would be better for the participant, participants identified key differences between 
account types. For example, some felt that brokerage accounts are better for those with 
investment expertise and time to dedicate to investing, whereas advisory accounts are better for 
those who have less expertise and/or less time to monitor investments. As one participant stated, 
“so it seems like the broker, broker dealer services are definitely more geared for someone who 
is wanting to kind of do it on their own . . . someone who, you know, feels comfortable, um, 
buying and selling on their own. the advisor services . . . are definitely more for someone who 
either doesn't understand the market or doesn’t have the time to, you know, monitor their 
investments as much . . . so they want to hire someone that will basically do that for them.” 
Others described brokerage accounts as more self-directed than advisory accounts, or that 
advisory accounts would be better for those with more assets. One participant said “right now if  
. . . I had to pay for it, I would just go with a broker-dealer, because like I said, . . . I’m kinda . . . 
new to a career, and I don't have a lot of money, and I'm kinda interested in like, managing that 
stuff on my own...but I think, . . . as I get older, and closer to retirement and wanna make sure 
that I don't make any ... mistakes, 'cause I won't have time to recover from them, and I think it 
probably makes sense to, ... start getting a little bit more advice.” 
Misunderstanding was demonstrated in two ways. First, some people understood discrete 
sections of the Relationship Summary, but when questioned at the end of the interviews, they did 
not appear to have synthesized the information and be able to apply it. For example, one 
participant could clearly put differences in fees related to each type of account, saying that “the 
transaction-based fee is based on like each individual transaction, every time that you trade you 
would be charged a fee based on whatever it was you were trading or the amount, or number of 
shares, or whatever, however they would charge. And then the asset based fee is just based on 
how much, what your assets are that are being managed.” However, at the end of the interview, 
the same participant incorrectly responded to several questions. For example, when asked about 
which type of financial professional has an incentive to encourage investors to buy and sell 

 
 48 
securities frequently, the participant incorrectly answered, “I think there’s probably more 
incentive on the advisory account.” 
Others seemed to misunderstand the differences between account types and financial 
professionals from the beginning, never fully grasping it. For example, when asked what kind of 
investor would be better off with a BD and what kind of investor would be better off with an IA 
if the decision is based on cost alone, one participant could not provide great detail, answering: 
“Now when you say investor would I just say someone like myself . . . like . . . normal everyday 
people individuals . . . . I would say investment adviser is best. Um. I’m thinking like who would 
want that . . . I don’t know if businesses are better off with broker dealer services . . . .” 
Participants Demonstrated Evidence of Learning New Information from the Relationship 
Summary.  
Some expressed their learning in a general way. For example, “it’s definitely some good 
information here for me on a personal level, learning some things that I didn’t know before.” 
Others expressed that they had learned specific terms and phrases. For example, one participant 
commented that “you did teach me that acting as principal thing, um, and you defined it well 
without insulting my intelligence.” Another said after reading the phrase “wrap fee,” “. . . I’ve 
never heard . . . that’s a new term for me, personally.”  
Participants Varied in Their Understanding of What Constitutes Monitoring.  
Participants were sometimes unclear on how a financial professional would monitor an 
account. For example, one participant made the statement below, demonstrating the lack of 
clarity on what monitoring would involve, saying that “. . . I think I would be interested in a little 
more specifics on [monitoring]. Like, you know, um, it says, ‘We'll contact you at least quarterly 
to discuss, but what does that look like? You know? . . . is it kind walking through things, talking 
about what's happened with it? Is it just like a, you know, five minute ‘Hey,’ you know, check in 
call.” In addition, some participants were unclear on how frequently monitoring would occur. 
For example, one described monitoring in this way: “That means they are going to have in their 
Google calendar, I need to check up on Mr. Smith’s accounts every, whether it's once a week or 
whatever. I don't know if it would be predetermined or if it's based on the person when they want 
to work their accounts or whatever. But I know, at least on a certain time frame, they're going to 
be looked at and not just going to be thrown to the wayside.” Another said that “[continuous 
monitoring] could be anything. Could be quarterly. Could be yearly. Could be every five years.”  
Participants Generally Understood the Two-Column Format but Recommended Some 
Changes.   
Some participants grasped that the document was organized into two columns, each 
corresponding to an account type. Some others did not realize this immediately but grasped it 
once it was pointed out by an interviewer. Some participants made other suggestions to make 

 
 49 
reading the document easier, such as adding a glossary of terms and a graphic to help show the 
relationship of fees to accounts. For example, one said, “I noticed that a lot of terms that, like, in 
theory, I might not know are bolded but then they’re not defined. So I think if there was either 
maybe a glossary of terms or like footnotes or something explaining the bold terms that would 
make it an easier read.” Another participant suggested a graphic, saying, “I think maybe some 
sort of graphic somewhere could be helpful.”  
Most Participants Preferred the Paper Version; Some Participants Indicated that They 
Would Prefer Electronic Copies, but Few Expressed Interest in an App 
As with ALP survey respondents, interview participants generally liked having a paper 
version of the Relationship Summary. Participants who preferred electronic copies expressed 
some reasons for their preference. One viewed the electronic copy as preferable because “I can, 
you know, search for key phrases if I think I need something...I can just quickly say ‘Oh do they 
provide that service? Let me just do a quick little search and see if it pops up.’” As another 
stated, “. . . I like to get a PDF so I can either view it online or I could print it.” One participant 
pointed out another benefit of electronic or online versions is that “. . . some of these things could 
be highlighted like I could just click on investor.gov and go directly to that.” Reactions to apps 
were somewhat less positive, with one participant saying, “I don't know if I would download an 
app just to read a document.” 
Summary 
Several in-depth interviews were conducted to complement our understanding of ALP survey 
results. The interview findings provided deeper insight into the survey findings, particularly in 
areas that were confusing or where more detail would be helpful. While some interview 
participants developed a good understanding of the differences between account types, others 
demonstrated some confusion or misunderstanding. In reading through the Relationship 
Summary and sharing thoughts, participants had strong reactions to the idea of being offered 
limited investment options for either type of account. Participants felt that the “Fees and Costs” 
section was overwhelming, but at the same time could benefit from adding details about what 
fees the client would be paying. They also experienced some confusion about fees being 
negotiable. Participants had difficulty reconciling the information provided in the “Obligations to 
You” section and the “Conflicts of Interest” section. Participants found a number of financial 
terms throughout the Relationship Summary to be confusing (e.g., “fiduciary”), even terms that 
were defined or described. 

 
 50 
4. Review of Findings 
The SEC’s Office of the Investor Advocate engaged RAND researchers to conduct a 
nationwide survey and qualitative interviews of investors to gather feedback on a sample 
Relationship Summary. We designed and fielded the survey through RAND’s nationally 
representative ALP to collect information on the opinions, preferences, attitudes, and level of 
self-assessed comprehension of the U.S. adult population with regard to a sample Relationship 
Summary. The survey was not designed to objectively assess comprehension of the document. 
As a complement to the survey, we also conducted qualitative interviews with investors to obtain 
further insights related to the reasoning and beliefs behind investors’ attitudes toward the 
Relationship Summary. The larger survey sample allows us to distinguish differences across key 
subgroups, such as education level, but the interview sample is small and cannot provide insight 
into how understanding varies by subgroups. 
Several general findings emerged from our analysis of the survey responses and interview 
discussions. Survey respondents expressed generally positive assessments of the format and 
content of the Relationship Summary. Nearly 90 percent of survey respondents opined that the 
Relationship Summary would help them make more informed decisions about investment 
accounts and services. More than three out of every four respondents agreed with statements 
characterizing the Relationship Summary as helpful for understanding key terms and conflicts of 
interest and as serving as the basis for a conversation with an investment professional. Interview 
participants also expressed that the Relationship Summary improved their understanding, but 
interview discussions revealed that there were areas of confusion for participants, including 
differences between types of accounts or financial professionals. Opinions of survey respondents 
with less education or less investment experience were less positive than those of respondents 
with more education or investment experience, but opinions for all groups were still generally 
positive.  
Eighty-five percent of respondents found the side-by-side comparisons to be helpful for the 
purposes of deciding between a BD and an IA. Almost all of the respondents who reported that 
they would be likely to read any documents when choosing a financial professional or account 
type reported that they would read the Relationship Summary, alone or in addition to other 
documents. A majority of respondents reported that the Relationship Summary was too long. In 
the section-by-section questioning, however, the most common response was to keep the section 
length as is. 
With respect to the different topics covered in the Relationship Summary, information on 
fees and costs tends to be perceived as of the most potential help. The current “Fees and Costs” 
section is the most likely to be selected as one of the two most informative sections (and least 
likely to be least informative) by survey respondents, yet it is also the most likely to be found to 

 
 51 
be difficult to understand in its current form and to be recommended to have more detail added. 
Among current and potential “key questions to ask,” questions concerning fees and costs tended 
to generate the most interest. Interview participants felt that the “Fees and Costs” section was 
overwhelming, but at the same time could benefit from adding details about possible fees for the 
client. Interview participants also experienced some confusion about fees being negotiable. 
Survey responses indicated that the “Relationships and Services” and “Our Obligations to 
You” sections were the second and third most likely to be chosen as informative sections, 
respectively. Interview participants also viewed these sections favorably. However, interview 
participants had difficulty reconciling the information provided in the “Our Obligations to You” 
section and the “Conflicts of Interest” section. 
ALP survey respondents tended to express interest in the key questions more generally, 
typically reporting that they would be likely to ask the questions and would be comfortable doing 
so. Likewise, most interview participants said that they liked all of the questions, that they would 
ask these questions in meeting with a financial service provider, and did not suggest dropping 
any of the questions.  
 

 
 52 
References  
Beatty, P. C., and G. B. Willis, “Research Synthesis: The Practice of Cognitive Interviewing,” 
Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 71, No. 2, 2007, pp. 287–311. 
Boyatzis, R. E., Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code 
Development, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications; 1998. 
Braun, V., and V. Clarke, “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology,” Qualitative Research in 
Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2006, pp. 77–101. 
Hung, Angela A., Noreen Clancy, Jeff Dominitz, Eric Talley, Claude Berrebi, and Farrukh 
Suvankulov, Investor and Industry Perspectives on Investment Advisers and Broker-Dealers, 
Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, TR-556-SEC, 2008. As of September 20, 2018: 
https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR556.html 
Pollard, Michael and Matthew D. Baird, The RAND American Life Panel: Technical Description, 
Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-1651, 2017. As of October 22, 2018: 
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1651.html 
Scholl, Brian, Angela A. Hung, Alycia Chin, Drew M. Anderson, Michelle Bongard, Katherine 
Carman, Noreen Clancy, Jeff Dominitz, Theresa Kelly, Sean McKenna, Benjamin Smith, 
Margaret Tankard, and Paul Steinberg, The Retail Market for Investment Advice, Santa 
Monica, Calif: RAND Corporation, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the 
Investor Advocate, 2018. As of October 18, 2018: 
https://www.sec.gov/files/retail-market-for-investment-advice.pdf 
U.S. Census Bureau, “HINC-01. Selected Characteristics of Households, by Total Money 
Income in 2016,” Washington, D.C., undated. As of October 18, 2018: 
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-hinc/hinc-
01.2016.html 
U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 1: Educational Attainment of the Population 18 Years and Over, by 
Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 2017,” Washington, D.C., December 14, 2017. As of 
October 18, 2018: 
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/education-attainment/cps-detailed-
tables.html 
 

 
 53 
Appendix 1: Relationship Summary Screen Shots from ALP 
Survey 
Figure A1: First Screen of Relationship Summary from ALP Survey 
 
Figure A2: Second Screen of Relationship Summary from ALP Survey 
 

 
 54 
Figure A3: Third Screen of Relationship Summary from ALP Survey 
 
Figure A4: Fourth Screen of Relationship Summary from ALP Survey 
 

 
 55 
Figure A5: Fifth Screen of Relationship Summary from ALP Survey 
 
 
Relationship Summary Survey Questionnaire 
 
L1  L1 CRS length 
Is the Relationship Summary too long, too short, or about right? Select one.  
1 Too long 
2 Too short 
3 About right 
 
[The following questions are displayed as a table] 
 
L2_Intro  L2_Intro 
For each section listed below, please think about how the information is presented. Would you 
add more detail, keep as is, shorten, or delete?  
 
L2a  L2a 
Types of Relationships and Services  
1 Add more detail 
2 Keep as is 

 
 56 
3 Shorten 
4 Delete 
 
L2b  L2b 
Our Obligations to You 
1 Add more detail 
2 Keep as is 
3 Shorten 
4 Delete 
 
L2c  L2c 
Fees and Costs 
1 Add more detail 
2 Keep as is 
3 Shorten 
4 Delete 
 
L2d  L2d 
Conflicts of Interest 
1 Add more detail 
2 Keep as is 
3 Shorten 
4 Delete 
 
L2e  L2e 
Additional Information 
1 Add more detail 
2 Keep as is 
3 Shorten 
4 Delete 
 
L2f  L2f 
Key Questions to Ask 
1 Add more detail 
2 Keep as is 
3 Shorten 
4 Delete 
 
[End of table display] 
N1  N1 Most Informative 
In helping you decide which types of investment accounts and services are right for you, which 
two sections would be most informative? Please select two.   
1 Types of Relationships and Services 
2 Our Obligations to You 
3 Fees and Costs 
4 Conflicts of Interests 

 
 57 
5 Additional Information 
6 Key Questions to Ask 
 
N2  N2 Least Informative 
In helping you decide which types of investment accounts and services are right for you, which 
two sections would be least informative? Please select two.    
1 Types of Relationships and Services 
2 Our Obligations to You 
3 Fees and Costs 
4 Conflicts of Interests 
5 Additional Information 
6 Key Questions to Ask 
 
[The following questions are displayed as a table] 
 
D1_Intro  D1_Intro 
Please assess the ease or difficulty in understanding each of the sections of the Relationship 
Summary. 
 
D1a  D1a 
Types of Relationships and Services 
1 Very easy 
2 Easy  
3 Just right 
4 Difficult 
5 Very difficult 
 
D1b  D1b 
Our Obligations to You 
1 Very easy 
2 Easy  
3 Just right 
4 Difficult 
5 Very difficult 
 
D1c  D1c 
Fees and Costs 
1 Very easy 
2 Easy  
3 Just right 
4 Difficult 
5 Very difficult 
 
D1d  D1d 
Conflict of Interests 
1 Very easy 

 
 58 
2 Easy  
3 Just right 
4 Difficult 
5 Very difficult 
 
D1e  D1e 
Additional Information 
1 Very easy 
2 Easy  
3 Just right 
4 Difficult 
5 Very difficult 
 
D1f  D1f 
Key Questions to Ask 
1 Very easy 
2 Easy  
3 Just right 
4 Difficult 
5 Very difficult 
 
[End of table display] 
D2  D2 Question format 
Would you prefer that the Relationship Summary be presented in a question and answer format? 
For example, the section titled "Types of Relationships and Services" would instead be titled 
"What Types of Services Does the Firm Provide".  
1 Yes 
2 No 
 
D3  D3 Open-ended format 
Is there another format for the Relationship Summary that you would prefer?  
Open 
 
D4  D4 Side-by-side format 
Does the side-by-side comparison in the Relationship Summary help you to decide whether a 
broker-dealer or investment adviser account would be right for you?  
1 Yes 
2 No 
 
[The following questions are displayed as a table] 
 
D5_intro  D5 Links intro 
If the Relationship Summary contained links to the following types of additional information, 
how likely would you be to click on them?  
 
D5a  D5a 

 
 59 
Information on services 
1 Very likely 
2 Somewhat likely  
3 Not too likely 
4 Not at all likely 
 
D5b  D5b 
Information on fees  
1 Very likely 
2 Somewhat likely  
3 Not too likely 
4 Not at all likely 
 
D5c  D5c 
Information on conflicts of interest  
1 Very likely 
2 Somewhat likely  
3 Not too likely 
4 Not at all likely 
 
D5d  D5d 
Investor education materials 
1 Very likely 
2 Somewhat likely  
3 Not too likely 
4 Not at all likely 
 
[End of table display] 
[The following questions are displayed as a table] 
 
D6  D6 Review format 
In which format would you be most likely to review the information in the Relationship 
Summary? Select one.  
1 On paper 
2 Via email 
3 On firm’s website 
4 Video 
5 Do not know 
6 Other, please specify: $Answer2$ 
 
D6_other  D6 other format  
 
String 
 
[End of table display] 
IF D6 Review format = Other, please specify: $Answer2$ AND D6 other format =EMPTY 

 
 60 
THEN 
|  
| error_other  error_other 
| You answered the previous question, but did not specify the requested information. Your 
| answers are important to us. Please return to the previous question and answer it to the best of 
| your ability. 
|  
ENDIF 
 
D7  D7 
If you chose to work with a financial professional, when would you like to receive a copy of the 
Relationship Summary? Check all that apply.  
1 At the outset of the relationship (i.e., before or at the time you first engage the investment 
professional) 
2 Before the investment professional first recommends a transaction or investment strategy 
3 Periodically (e.g. quarterly, semi-annually or annually) 
4 Upon request 
5 Whenever there is a material change in the Relationship Summary, such as a change in fees or 
commission structure. 
 
D8  D8 
If you had an ongoing relationship with a financial professional, how would you like to be 
informed of material changes in the information in the Relationship Summary? Check all that 
apply. 
1 I would like to receive a complete updated Relationship Summary with the changes highlighted 
2 I would like to receive a notice containing only the text of the specific changes 
3 I would like to receive a notice providing a summary of the changes 
4 I would like to receive a verbal explanation of the changes from my investment professional 
 
[The following questions are displayed as a table] 
 
Q1_Intro  Q1 Question comfort 
How comfortable would you be asking your financial professional the "Key Questions to Ask" 
provided in the Relationship Summary?  
 
Q1a  Q1a 
Given my financial situation, why should I choose an advisory account? Why should I choose 
a brokerage account? 
1 Very comfortable 
2 Somewhat comfortable 
3 Neutral 
4 Somewhat uncomfortable  
5 Very uncomfortable 
 
Q1b  Q1b 
Do the math for me. How much would I expect to pay per year for an advisory account? How 

 
 61 
much for a typical brokerage account? What would make those fees more or less? What services 
will I receive for those fees? 
1 Very comfortable 
2 Somewhat comfortable 
3 Neutral 
4 Somewhat uncomfortable  
5 Very uncomfortable 
 
Q1c  Q1c 
What additional costs should I expect in connection with my account?  
1 Very comfortable 
2 Somewhat comfortable 
3 Neutral 
4 Somewhat uncomfortable  
5 Very uncomfortable 
 
Q1d  Q1d 
Tell me how you and your firm make money in connection with my account. Do you or your 
firm receive any payments from anyone besides me in connection with my investments? 
1 Very comfortable 
2 Somewhat comfortable 
3 Neutral 
4 Somewhat uncomfortable  
5 Very uncomfortable 
 
Q1e  Q1e 
What are the most common conflicts of interest in your advisory and brokerage accounts? 
Explain how you will address those conflicts when providing services to my account.  
1 Very comfortable 
2 Somewhat comfortable 
3 Neutral 
4 Somewhat uncomfortable  
5 Very uncomfortable 
 
[End of table display] 
[The following questions are displayed as a table] 
 
Q1_Intro  Q1 Question comfort 
How comfortable would you be asking your financial professional the "Key Questions to Ask" 
provided in the Relationship Summary?  
 
Q1f  Q1f 
How will you choose investments to recommend for my account?  
1 Very comfortable 
2 Somewhat comfortable 
3 Neutral 

 
 62 
4 Somewhat uncomfortable  
5 Very uncomfortable 
 
Q1g  Q1g 
How often will you monitor my account’s performance and offer investment advice? 
1 Very comfortable 
2 Somewhat comfortable 
3 Neutral 
4 Somewhat uncomfortable  
5 Very uncomfortable 
 
Q1h  Q1h 
Do you or your firm have a disciplinary history? For what type of conduct?  
1 Very comfortable 
2 Somewhat comfortable 
3 Neutral 
4 Somewhat uncomfortable  
5 Very uncomfortable 
 
Q1i  Q1i 
What is your relevant experience, including your licenses, education, and other qualifications? 
Please explain what the abbreviations in your licenses are and what they mean. 
1 Very comfortable 
2 Somewhat comfortable 
3 Neutral 
4 Somewhat uncomfortable  
5 Very uncomfortable 
 
Q1j  Q1j 
Who is the primary contact person for my account, and is he or she a representative of an 
investment adviser or a broker-dealer? What can you tell me about his or her legal obligations to 
me? If I have concerns about how this person is treating me, who can I talk to? 
1 Very comfortable 
2 Somewhat comfortable 
3 Neutral 
4 Somewhat uncomfortable  
5 Very uncomfortable 
 
[End of table display] 
IF ( Q1a = Somewhat uncomfortable or Q1a= Very uncomfortable ) OR ( Q1b = Somewhat 
uncomfortable 
or Q1b= Very uncomfortable ) OR ( Q1c = Somewhat uncomfortable or Q1c= Very 
uncomfortable ) OR 
( Q1d = Somewhat uncomfortable or Q1d= Very uncomfortable ) OR ( Q1e = Somewhat 
uncomfortable  
or Q1e= Very uncomfortable ) OR ( Q1f = Somewhat uncomfortable or Q1f= Very 

 
 63 
uncomfortable ) OR ( 
Q1g = Somewhat uncomfortable or Q1g= Very uncomfortable ) OR ( Q1h = Somewhat 
uncomfortable or 
Q1h= Very uncomfortable ) OR ( Q1i = Somewhat uncomfortable or Q1i= Very uncomfortable ) 
OR ( Q1j 
= Somewhat uncomfortable or Q1j= Very uncomfortable ) THEN 
|  
| [The following questions are displayed as a table] 
|  
| Q2_Intro  Q2_Intro 
| In the previous question, you indicated that you would not be comfortable asking certain  
| questions. Please tell us more about why you would not be comfortable. For each row, check all 
| that apply.  
|  
| IF Q1a = Somewhat uncomfortable or Q1a= Very uncomfortable THEN 
| |  
| | Q2a  Q2a 
| | Given my financial situation, why should I choose an advisory account? Why should I choose 
a brokerage account? 
| | 1 I don’t understand the question 
| | 2 I don’t think I would understand the answer 
| | 3 I don’t think it is an appropriate question to ask 
| | 4 I don’t know enough about investing to have a meaningful conversation about this issue 
| | 5 Other reason 
| |  
| ENDIF 
|  
| IF Q1b = Somewhat uncomfortable or Q1b= Very uncomfortable THEN 
| |  
| | Q2b  Q2b 
| | Do the math for me. How much would I expect to pay per year for an advisory account? How 
much | | for a typical brokerage account? What would make those fees more or less? What 
services will I 
| | receive for those fees? 
| | 1 I don’t understand the question 
| | 2 I don’t think I would understand the answer 
| | 3 I don’t think it is an appropriate question to ask 
| | 4 I don’t know enough about investing to have a meaningful conversation about this issue 
| | 5 Other reason 
| |  
| ENDIF 
|  
| IF Q1c = Somewhat uncomfortable or Q1c= Very uncomfortable THEN 
| |  
| | Q2c  Q2c 
| | What additional costs should I expect in connection with my account?  

 
 64 
| | 1 I don’t understand the question 
| | 2 I don’t think I would understand the answer 
| | 3 I don’t think it is an appropriate question to ask 
| | 4 I don’t know enough about investing to have a meaningful conversation about this issue 
| | 5 Other reason 
| |  
| ENDIF 
|  
| IF Q1d = Somewhat uncomfortable or Q1d= Very uncomfortable THEN 
| |  
| | Q2d  Q2d 
| | Tell me how you and your firm make money in connection with my account. Do you or your 
firm | | receive any payments from anyone besides me in connection with my investments? 
| | 1 I don’t understand the question 
| | 2 I don’t think I would understand the answer 
| | 3 I don’t think it is an appropriate question to ask 
| | 4 I don’t know enough about investing to have a meaningful conversation about this issue 
| | 5 Other reason 
| |  
| ENDIF 
|  
| IF Q1e = Somewhat uncomfortable or Q1e= Very uncomfortable THEN 
| |  
| | Q2e  Q2e 
| | What are the most common conflicts of interest in your advisory and brokerage accounts?  
| | Explain how you will address those conflicts when providing services to my account.  
| | 1 I don’t understand the question 
| | 2 I don’t think I would understand the answer 
| | 3 I don’t think it is an appropriate question to ask 
| | 4 I don’t know enough about investing to have a meaningful conversation about this issue 
| | 5 Other reason 
| |  
| ENDIF 
|  
| IF Q1f = Somewhat uncomfortable or Q1f= Very uncomfortable THEN 
| |  
| | Q2f  Q2f 
| | How will you choose investments to recommend for my account?  
| | 1 I don’t understand the question 
| | 2 I don’t think I would understand the answer 
| | 3 I don’t think it is an appropriate question to ask 
| | 4 I don’t know enough about investing to have a meaningful conversation about this issue 
| | 5 Other reason 
| |  
| ENDIF 
|  

 
 65 
| IF Q1g = Somewhat uncomfortable or Q1g= Very uncomfortable THEN 
| |  
| | Q2g  Q2g 
| | How often will you monitor my account’s performance and offer investment advice? 
| | 1 I don’t understand the question 
| | 2 I don’t think I would understand the answer 
| | 3 I don’t think it is an appropriate question to ask 
| | 4 I don’t know enough about investing to have a meaningful conversation about this issue 
| | 5 Other reason 
| |  
| ENDIF 
|  
| IF Q1h = Somewhat uncomfortable or Q1h= Very uncomfortable THEN 
| |  
| | Q2h  Q2h 
| | Do you or your firm have a disciplinary history? For what type of conduct?  
| | 1 I don’t understand the question 
| | 2 I don’t think I would understand the answer 
| | 3 I don’t think it is an appropriate question to ask 
| | 4 I don’t know enough about investing to have a meaningful conversation about this issue 
| | 5 Other reason 
| |  
| ENDIF 
|  
| IF Q1i = Somewhat uncomfortable or Q1i= Very uncomfortable THEN 
| |  
| | Q2i  Q2i 
| | What is your relevant experience, including your licenses, education, and other qualifications?  
| | Please explain what the abbreviations in your licenses are and what they mean. 
| | 1 I don’t understand the question 
| | 2 I don’t think I would understand the answer 
| | 3 I don’t think it is an appropriate question to ask 
| | 4 I don’t know enough about investing to have a meaningful conversation about this issue 
| | 5 Other reason 
| |  
| ENDIF 
|  
| IF Q1j = Somewhat uncomfortable or Q1j= Very uncomfortable THEN 
| |  
| | Q2j  Q2j 
| | Who is the primary contact person for my account, and is he or she a representative of an  
| | investment adviser or a broker-dealer? What can you tell me about his or her legal obligations 
| | to me? If I have concerns about how this person is treating me, who can I talk to? 
| | 1 I don’t understand the question 
| | 2 I don’t think I would understand the answer 
| | 3 I don’t think it is an appropriate question to ask 

 
 66 
| | 4 I don’t know enough about investing to have a meaningful conversation about this issue 
| | 5 Other reason 
| |  
| ENDIF 
|  
| [End of table display] 
| Q2_followup  Q2_followup  
| Is there another reason you would not be comfortable asking these types of questions?  
| Open 
|  
ENDIF 
 
[The following questions are displayed as a table] 
 
Q3_Intro  Q3_Intro 
How likely would you be to ask your financial professional each of the following questions if 
they were included in the "Key Questions to Ask" section of the Relationship Summary?  
 
Q3a  Q3a 
If I give you $1,000 to invest, how much will go to fees and costs, and how much will be 
invested for me? 
1 Very likely 
2 Somewhat likely  
3 Not too likely 
4 Not at all likely 
 
Q3b  Q3b 
If I trade more investments in my brokerage account, do you (my broker) make more money?  
1 Very likely 
2 Somewhat likely  
3 Not too likely 
4 Not at all likely 
 
Q3c  Q3c 
If I add more money or investments to my advisory account, do you (my investment advisor) 
make more money? 
1 Very likely 
2 Somewhat likely  
3 Not too likely 
4 Not at all likely 
 
Q3d  Q3d 
If I invest in funds created or managed by your firm, do you or your firm make more money than 
if I buy a fund created by (or managed by) someone else? 
1 Very likely 
2 Somewhat likely  

 
 67 
3 Not too likely 
4 Not at all likely 
 
Q3e  Q3e 
How do you (my broker or advisor) get paid?  
1 Very likely 
2 Somewhat likely  
3 Not too likely 
4 Not at all likely 
 
[End of table display] 
Q4  Q4 
Are there other questions that you think should be included in the Relationship Summary?  
Open 
 
Q5  Q5 Discipline i 
How likely would you be to look up the disciplinary history of your financial professional or 
firm based on the information in the Relationship Summary? Select one.  
1 Very likely 
2 Somewhat likely  
3 Not too likely 
4 Not at all likely 
 
[The following questions are displayed as a table] 
 
Q6  Q6 Discipline ii 
What are some reasons why you would not look up the disciplinary history? Check all that 
apply.  
$(function(){ $('input[name="qQ6[]"][value="5"]').change(setBoxes); function setBoxes(){  
var $control = $('input[name="qQ6[]"][value="5"]'); $('input[name="qQ6[]"][value!="5"], 
input[name="qQ6_other"]').each(function(){ $this = $(this);  
if($control.prop('checked'))$this.prop('checked', false); $this.prop('disabled', 
$control.prop('checked')); }); } setBoxes(); });  
1 I don’t know where to get it 
2 It would take too much time or effort 
3 This information is not very important to me 
4 Other reason you would not look up history $Answer2$  
Or  
5 I would definitely look it up 
 
Q6_other  OTHER Discipline ii 
 
String 
 
[End of table display] 
IF ( I don’t know where to get it IN Q6 Discipline ii Discipline ii Discipline ii Discipline 

 
 68 
ii Discipline ii OR It would take too much time or effort IN Q6 OR This information is not very 
important to me IN Q6 OR Other reason you would not look up history $Answer2$  
Or  
IN 
Q6) AND ( I would definitely look it up IN Q6) THEN 
|  
| Q6_error_other  Q6_error_other 
| You stated you would not look up disciplinary history and also selected that you did. Your 
| answers are important to us. Please return to the previous question and answer it to the best of 
| your ability. 
|  
ENDIF 
 
IF ( Other reason you would not look up history $Answer2$  
Or  
IN Q6 Discipline ii ) 
AND ( OTHER Discipline ii =EMPTY) THEN 
|  
| error_other  error_other 
| You answered the previous question, but did not specify the requested information. Your 
| answers are important to us. Please return to the previous question and answer it to the best of 
| your ability. 
|  
ENDIF 
 
[The following questions are displayed as a table] 
 
R1_Intro  R1_Intro 
If all broker-dealers and investment advisers were required to provide this type of Relationship 
Summary to clients, would it help you:  
 
R1a  R1a 
Compare accounts offered by a firm? 
1 Yes 
2 No 
 
R1b  R1b 
Compare accounts offered by different firms?  
1 Yes 
2 No 
 
R1c  R1c 
Make more informed decisions about which types of investment accounts and services are right 
for 
you?  
1 Yes 

 
 69 
2 No 
 
[End of table display] 
IF R1a = No or R1b = No or R1c = No THEN 
|  
| R2  R2 CRS not helpful 
| If the Relationship Summary would not be helpful to make these comparisons and decisions, 
why 
| not?  
| Open 
|  
ENDIF 
 
R3  R3 Other documents 
Many of the topics included in the Relationship Summary are currently contained in longer 
documents (such as an investment adviser’s Form ADV or a broker-dealer’s account opening 
agreement) that give you more details about services, costs, conflicts of interests, and other 
matters.  
Have you ever reviewed an investment adviser’s Form ADV or a broker-dealer’s account 
opening  
agreement? Select one.  
1 Form ADV 
2 Account Opening Agreement 
3 Both 
4 Neither 
5 Do Not Know 
 
R4  R4 Read documents 
When choosing a financial professional, account type, or firm, which of the documents are you 
likely to read? 
1 Only the Longer Documents 
2 Only the Relationship Summary 
3 Both 
4 Do Not Know 
5 Would Not Read Any of the Documents 
 
[The following questions are displayed as a table] 
 
R5_Intro  R5_Intro 
Please indicate whether you agree with the following statements.  
 
R5a  R5a 
The Relationship Summary would help me understand the key terms and conflicts of interest that 
apply to the relationship with the investment professional.  
1 Strongly agree 
2 Agree 

 
 70 
3 Neither agree nor disagree 
4 Disagree 
5 Strongly disagree 
 
R5b  R5b 
I would use the Relationship Summary as the basis for a conversation with an investment 
professional.  
1 Strongly agree 
2 Agree 
3 Neither agree nor disagree 
4 Disagree 
5 Strongly disagree 
 
[End of table display] 
R6  R6 
Do you have any additional suggestions to improve the Relationship Summary?  
Open 
 
 
 
  

 
 71 
Appendix 2: Supplemental Tables 
Table A1. Correlations Among Opinions about Section Length and Section Difficulty 
 
 
 
Table A2. Opinions about Section Length Conditional on Opinions about Section Difficulty 
 
 
 
Services & 
RelationshipsObligations
Fees & 
CostsConflicts
Additional 
Info
Key 
Questions
Services & 
RelationshipsObligations
Fees 
& 
CostsConflicts
Additional 
Info
Key 
Questions
Services & 
Relationships1.00
Obligations0.491.00
Fees & Costs0.300.451.00
Conflicts0.400.550.571.00
Additional Info0.430.480.380.571.00
Key Questions
0.370.410.400.440.451.00
Services & 
Relationships0.210.040.070.100.120.041.00
Obligations0.200.120.140.150.190.080.651.00
Fees & Costs0.05-0.04-0.03-0.020.050.020.560.551.00
Conflicts0.190.030.02-0.010.090.040.530.510.551.00
Additional Info0.190.180.080.170.190.100.490.500.350.531.00
Key Questions
0.200.140.100.170.090.170.370.380.220.370.631.00
Section Length
1
Section Difficulty
2
Correlation 
Coefficient Matrix
Section Length
Section Difficulty
Conditional on 
(Very) Easy
Conditional on 
(Very) Difficult
Conditional on 
(Very) Easy
Conditional on 
(Very) Difficult
11.6%5.8%31.2%59.8%
2.6%1.8%5.1%3.7%
15.6%21.4%18.0%39.9%
3.0%3.1%3.2%3.9%
26.5%41.3%31.4%31.3%
4.6%3.1%5.7%2.9%
18.8%31.3%33.0%37.8%
4.1%3.2%5.8%37.8%
9.6%6.7%33.4%68.5%
2.0%1.7%3.7%3.4%
12.5%11.7%22.0%60.0%
2.2%3.2%2.9%6.2%
Services & Relationships
Obligations to You
Fees & Costs
Conflicts of Interest
Additional Information
Key Questions
Section
Section Length Response
Add more detailShorten or Delete

 
 72 
Table A3. Opinions about Section Length and Difficulty Conditional on Being Most or Least 
Informative 
 
 
 
Table A4. Opinions about Section on Types of Relationships and Services 
A4a. Section Length: Types of Relationships and Services 
 
 
 
 
Conditional on 
Most 
Informative
Conditional on 
Least 
Informative
Conditional 
on Most 
Informative
Conditional 
on Least 
Informative
Conditional 
on Most 
Informative
Conditional 
on Least 
Informative
Conditional 
on Most 
Informative
Conditional 
on Least 
Informative
9.3%7.3%29.3%48.7%32.6%34.1%18.7%32.8%
1.6%3.5%2.6%7.4%2.7%5.9%1.9%5.8%
16.4%18.3%27.6%20.9%29.6%33.2%21.1%21.4%
2.7%3.5%4.6%3.7%4.1%5.5%2.9%3.3%
33.5%25.8%25.5%26.3%24.0%17.9%37.7%29.5%
2.3%4.9%2.1%5.2%2.3%4.5%2.3%5.5%
25.5%15.6%28.6%35.5%26.3%21.8%32.8%33.9%
5.2%1.9%8.3%2.8%8.3%2.7%6.2%2.7%
21.6%6.7%30.5%42.6%35.5%33.8%20.5%19.6%
9.0%1.5%11.0%2.5%10.9%2.5%10.2%1.8%
12.2%6.9%18.1%38.3%42.2%41.2%9.5%8.5%
2.5%1.5%4.1%4.2%4.6%3.8%2.3%1.7%
Section
Services & Relationships
Obligations to You
Fees & Costs
Conflicts of Interest
Section Difficulty Response
(Very) Easy(Very) DifficultAdd more detail
Section Length Response
Shorten or Delete
Additional Information
Key Questions
Re s ponde nt Group
Add More 
Detail
Keep 
As IsShortenDelete
All Respondents8.8%56.2%34.5%0.6%
1.2%2.2%2.2%0.3%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor9.1%54.1%36.2%0.6%
2.3%4.3%4.2%0.5%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice4.2%59.5%35.2%1.1%
1.8%4.3%4.2%0.9%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice16.6%45.0%38.0%0.4%
5.6%8.1%8.9%0.4%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice11.9%52.8%34.9%0.5%
3.1%4.7%4.9%0.3%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice6.8%64.7%28.5%0.0%
1.9%3.8%3.5%0.0%
Education
HS Diploma or Less11.4%52.2%35.6%0.8%
2.8%4.8%4.8%0.6%
Some College6.1%58.7%34.4%0.8%
1.4%3.0%2.9%0.5%
Bachelor's Degree or More8.1%58.5%33.3%0.1%
1.5%2.9%2.8%0.1%

 
 73 
A4b. Most or Least Informative Section: Types of Relationships and Services 
 
 
 
A4c. Section Difficulty: Types of Relationships and Services. 
 
 
Re s ponde nt Group
Most 
Informative
Least 
Informative
All Respondents52.5%12.6%
2.3%1.7%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor48.2%18.7%
4.3%3.2%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice56.1%6.4%
4.3%1.4%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice48.2%16.5%
8.5%9.1%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice53.7%13.7%
4.7%3.0%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice55.5%8.7%
4.3%1.7%
Education
HS Diploma or Less43.0%14.6%
4.6%3.9%
Some College50.8%13.1%
3.1%1.9%
Bachelor's Degree or More64.1%10.0%
2.6%1.5%
Re s ponde nt Group
Very 
EasyEasyJust RightDifficult
Very 
Difficult
All Respondents7.9%24.4%45.5%20.7%1.6%
1.2%2.2%2.2%1.5%0.4%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor7.3%15.8%53.6%21.2%2.1%
2.0%3.7%4.3%3.0%0.9%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice6.9%20.8%43.5%26.4%2.4%
3.0%3.4%4.3%3.7%1.3%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice5.9%33.0%45.3%15.4%0.4%
2.9%9.4%8.2%3.6%0.4%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice12.0%30.4%33.4%22.9%1.3%
2.9%5.1%4.0%3.5%0.6%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice7.9%29.9%47.0%14.5%0.7%
1.8%4.2%4.2%2.3%0.3%
Education
HS Diploma or Less6.6%25.4%45.4%20.1%2.4%
2.4%4.9%4.7%3.1%1.0%
Some College9.5%19.9%49.1%20.2%1.4%
2.0%2.5%3.1%2.1%0.6%
Bachelor's Degree or More8.0%26.7%42.8%21.6%0.9%
1.4%2.6%2.8%2.3%0.3%

 
 74 
Table A5. Opinions about Section on Obligations to You 
A5a. Section Length: Obligations to You 
 
 
A5b. Most or Least Informative Section: Obligations to You 
 
Re s ponde nt Group
Add More 
Detail
Keep 
As IsShortenDelete
All Respondents16.4%58.7%23.7%1.2%
1.5%2.2%2.0%0.5%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor18.8%55.1%24.8%1.2%
3.3%4.2%3.4%0.9%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice18.4%60.0%20.5%1.1%
3.3%4.2%3.4%0.9%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice11.8%52.3%35.5%0.4%
3.5%8.5%9.3%0.4%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice15.6%56.4%25.3%2.7%
3.3%4.8%4.7%2.2%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice14.1%67.9%17.6%0.3%
2.8%3.6%2.4%0.2%
Education
HS Diploma or Less17.3%56.5%24.9%1.3%
3.2%4.7%4.5%0.8%
Some College17.6%60.6%19.7%2.1%
2.4%3.0%2.3%1.4%
Bachelor's Degree or More14.4%59.6%25.6%0.3%
2.1%2.8%2.6%0.2%

 
 75 
A5c. Section Difficulty: Obligations to You 
 
 
Table A6. Opinions about Section on Fees and Costs 
A6a. Section Length: Fees and Costs 
 
Re s ponde nt Group
Very 
Easy
Easy
Just 
Right
Difficult
Very 
Difficult
All Respondents
8.8%
22.3%
45.9%
21.5%
1.4%
1.6%
1.9%
2.2%
1.6%
0.4%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor
5.9%
19.2%
51.7%
20.7%
2.5%
1.7%
3.8%
4.3%
3.0%
0.9%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice
8.4%
20.0%
41.9%
27.8%
1.9%
1.7%
3.8%
4.3%
3.0%
0.9%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice
12.2%
17.1%
52.0%
18.0%
0.7%
7.5%
6.0%
8.7%
4.9%
0.5%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice
9.9%
32.0%
37.7%
19.3%
1.0%
2.6%
5.1%
4.3%
2.9%
0.6%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice
10.1%
25.0%
45.8%
18.8%
0.4%
3.7%
3.5%
4.1%
3.3%
0.2%
Education
HS Diploma or Less
11.5%
19.9%
46.4%
19.8%
2.4%
3.9%
4.0%
4.8%
3.0%
1.0%
Some College
6.8%
22.2%
50.0%
19.9%
1.0%
1.6%
2.5%
3.1%
2.4%
0.4%
Bachelor's Degree or More
7.6%
25.0%
42.2%
24.6%
0.6%
1.4%
2.5%
2.7%
2.7%
0.3%
Re s ponde nt Group
Add More 
Detail
Keep 
As IsShortenDelete
All Respondents29.7%42.9%26.3%1.1%
1.9%2.2%2.1%0.4%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor25.1%46.1%27.6%1.2%
3.4%4.4%3.5%0.7%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice29.5%44.6%23.2%2.7%
4.0%4.3%3.7%1.5%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice31.5%37.1%31.0%0.4%
6.8%7.6%9.4%0.4%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice32.6%34.5%32.6%0.3%
3.9%4.3%5.0%0.2%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice32.6%47.1%20.3%0.0%
4.3%4.2%3.0%0.0%
Education
HS Diploma or Less29.2%40.6%27.8%2.4%
4.2%4.6%4.5%1.1%
Some College28.8%49.6%20.9%0.7%
2.6%3.1%2.6%0.5%
Bachelor's Degree or More30.9%40.3%28.8%0.0%
2.4%2.8%2.7%0.0%

 
 76 
A6b. Most or Least Informative Section: Fees and Costs 
 
 
 
A6c. Section Difficulty: Fees and Costs 
 
 
Re s ponde nt Group
Most 
Informative
Least 
Informative
All Respondents72.7%11.0%
2.2%1.4%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor65.9%16.5%
4.2%3.6%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice74.5%16.3%
3.8%3.3%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice61.9%5.4%
9.5%1.9%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice81.4%7.0%
3.2%1.7%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice80.0%4.3%
2.8%1.2%
Education
HS Diploma or Less66.8%14.9%
4.9%3.1%
Some College74.5%13.3%
2.7%2.3%
Bachelor's Degree or More77.9%5.1%
2.3%0.9%
Re s ponde nt Group
Very 
EasyEasy
Just 
RightDifficult
Very 
Difficult
All Respondents4.8%20.4%39.2%31.2%4.3%
1.0%2.1%2.1%1.9%0.8%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor4.1%13.5%55.3%22.4%4.7%
1.4%2.6%4.1%3.0%1.3%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice2.8%18.3%31.4%41.3%6.2%
1.0%4.0%3.8%4.2%2.4%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice0.9%38.8%28.4%28.6%3.3%
0.6%9.1%6.7%6.4%2.0%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice8.8%24.7%36.6%26.5%3.3%
2.5%5.1%4.3%3.4%1.1%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice7.8%17.3%36.8%35.5%2.5%
3.7%3.1%3.9%3.9%1.1%
Education
HS Diploma or Less4.2%22.2%38.8%28.9%5.9%
2.1%4.7%4.6%3.7%1.9%
Some College5.1%17.8%43.5%30.4%3.2%
1.3%2.5%3.1%2.7%0.9%
Bachelor's Degree or More5.3%20.6%36.3%34.4%3.4%
1.2%2.6%2.6%2.7%0.8%

 
 77 
 
Table A7. Opinions about Section on Conflicts of Interest 
A7a. Section Length: Conflicts of Interest 
 
 
A7b. Most or Least Informative Section: Conflicts of Interest 
 
Re s ponde nt Group
Add More 
Detail
Keep 
As IsShortenDelete
All Respondents22.0%47.5%28.3%2.2%
1.8%2.2%2.0%0.6%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor23.4%46.9%25.8%3.8%
3.5%4.4%3.3%1.5%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice24.1%47.1%26.5%2.4%
3.9%4.3%3.7%1.4%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice13.9%45.1%38.0%3.0%
3.8%8.2%9.0%1.9%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice24.8%43.7%30.6%1.0%
3.9%4.5%4.8%0.8%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice20.3%53.5%25.9%0.4%
3.9%4.2%3.3%0.2%
Education
HS Diploma or Less23.1%47.2%25.5%4.1%
3.8%4.7%4.4%1.4%
Some College22.0%46.0%30.6%1.4%
2.4%3.1%2.9%0.6%
Bachelor's Degree or More20.7%49.1%29.4%0.8%
2.3%2.8%2.7%0.6%
Re s ponde nt Group
Most 
Informative
Least 
Informative
All Respondents14.5%36.5%
2.0%2.0%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor16.6%31.2%
3.9%3.6%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice16.3%37.9%
3.4%4.0%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice14.9%35.7%
9.2%7.3%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice9.7%38.4%
1.8%4.4%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice13.2%40.9%
3.1%3.9%
Education
HS Diploma or Less17.4%30.7%
4.5%3.8%
Some College13.9%37.3%
2.5%2.9%
Bachelor's Degree or More11.8%42.2%
1.8%2.8%

 
 78 
A7c. Section Difficulty: Conflicts of Interest 
 
 
 
Table A8. Opinions about Section on Additional Information 
A8. Section Length: Additional Information 
 
 
 
 
Re s ponde nt Group
Very 
EasyEasyJust RightDifficult
Very 
Difficult
All Respondents4.1%19.3%43.1%31.0%2.4%
0.6%2.1%2.2%1.9%0.6%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor4.2%13.6%52.1%26.6%3.5%
1.1%2.5%4.2%3.3%1.1%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice3.2%14.2%41.2%38.5%2.9%
1.1%3.0%4.2%4.3%1.7%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice2.8%35.7%34.6%26.6%0.3%
1.2%9.5%7.2%5.9%0.3%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice6.9%24.4%34.0%32.2%2.6%
2.2%5.1%3.9%4.2%1.2%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice3.6%19.0%46.2%29.4%1.7%
1.3%3.8%4.2%3.8%0.7%
Education
HS Diploma or Less2.4%21.2%44.4%28.9%3.1%
0.9%4.7%4.7%3.8%1.4%
Some College4.7%18.3%42.7%31.7%2.7%
1.1%2.6%3.1%2.9%0.8%
Bachelor's Degree or More5.4%18.1%42.1%32.8%1.5%
1.1%2.3%2.8%2.8%0.4%
Re s ponde nt Group
Add More 
Detail
Keep 
As IsShortenDelete
All Respondents9.3%50.8%35.9%3.9%
1.4%2.2%2.1%0.8%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor10.1%51.6%34.7%3.7%
2.2%4.3%3.8%1.3%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice12.2%50.6%31.1%6.0%
3.7%4.3%4.0%2.0%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice13.0%36.6%48.9%1.4%
6.1%7.1%8.4%0.7%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice8.3%52.5%34.7%4.6%
2.4%4.7%4.7%2.4%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice2.9%57.8%36.5%2.8%
0.8%4.1%3.9%1.5%
Education
HS Diploma or Less13.7%48.8%34.6%2.9%
3.5%4.7%4.6%1.1%
Some College8.8%51.2%34.1%5.9%
1.7%3.1%2.8%1.9%
Bachelor's Degree or More5.0%52.7%38.8%3.5%
1.0%2.9%2.9%1.1%

 
 79 
A8b. Most or Least Informative Section: Additional Information 
 
 
 
A8c. Section Difficulty: Additional Information 
 
 
 
Re s ponde nt Group
Most 
Informative
Least 
Informative
All Respondents3.4%66.0%
1.2%2.3%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor4.9%52.3%
1.7%4.3%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice1.3%68.1%
0.5%3.8%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice8.8%57.5%
7.5%9.4%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice3.1%72.3%
1.5%3.9%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice0.8%82.2%
0.4%2.6%
Education
HS Diploma or Less6.6%54.2%
3.0%4.9%
Some College2.6%67.7%
0.8%2.9%
Bachelor's Degree or More0.6%77.6%
0.3%2.2%
Re s ponde nt Group
Very 
EasyEasyJust RightDifficult
Very 
Difficult
All Respondents8.9%21.3%50.7%17.2%2.0%
1.4%1.7%2.2%1.4%0.4%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor11.0%16.0%54.4%16.3%2.3%
3.6%2.6%4.3%2.7%0.9%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice7.7%23.4%49.0%18.5%1.3%
2.3%3.8%4.3%3.0%0.9%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice7.9%16.3%56.7%19.1%0.0%
4.1%4.5%7.7%4.6%0.0%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice11.2%24.9%43.6%15.9%4.3%
2.9%4.8%4.5%3.1%1.6%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice6.4%25.6%49.8%16.3%1.8%
1.6%3.4%4.2%2.9%0.7%
Education
HS Diploma or Less8.3%15.7%55.6%17.7%2.6%
2.9%3.2%4.6%2.9%1.0%
Some College8.8%26.3%45.6%17.3%2.0%
2.0%2.9%3.1%2.2%0.7%
Bachelor's Degree or More9.6%23.2%49.6%16.4%1.3%
1.8%2.4%2.8%1.9%0.4%

 
 80 
Table A9. Opinions about Section on Key Questions to Ask 
A9a. Section Length: Key Questions to Ask 
 
 
 
A9b. Most or Least Informative Section: Key Questions to Ask 
 
 
 
 
Re s ponde nt Group
Add More 
Detail
Keep 
As IsShortenDelete
All Respondents12.0%61.6%23.5%2.9%
1.6%2.3%2.0%0.7%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor12.4%58.5%25.6%3.5%
2.4%4.1%3.5%1.3%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice10.3%67.9%17.5%4.3%
2.3%4.0%3.2%2.0%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice23.0%48.2%28.3%0.4%
8.4%8.5%8.9%0.4%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice10.5%58.5%27.1%3.9%
3.0%4.9%4.8%1.8%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice7.5%69.1%22.1%1.3%
1.5%3.7%3.5%0.6%
Education
HS Diploma or Less15.1%58.1%25.2%1.7%
3.6%4.8%4.4%0.8%
Some College10.2%64.5%20.3%5.0%
1.5%2.9%2.4%1.7%
Bachelor's Degree or More10.1%63.1%24.2%2.7%
1.9%2.9%2.7%1.1%
Re s ponde nt Group
Most 
Informative
Least 
Informative
All Respondents14.2%36.2%
1.3%2.2%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor16.1%35.6%
3.0%3.9%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice14.6%35.2%
2.9%4.2%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice8.3%35.1%
2.3%8.8%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice14.7%34.7%
3.0%4.7%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice14.6%40.3%
2.3%4.5%
Education
HS Diploma or Less12.0%39.2%
2.5%4.8%
Some College14.5%33.4%
2.0%2.9%
Bachelor's Degree or More16.3%35.1%
2.0%2.9%

 
 81 
 
A9c. Section Difficulty: Key Questions to Ask 
 
 
 
 
  
Re s ponde nt Group
Very 
EasyEasyJust RightDifficult
Very 
Difficult
All Respondents14.7%28.4%45.8%9.6%1.5%
1.6%2.0%2.2%1.2%0.5%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor13.9%21.0%52.4%11.0%1.8%
3.6%3.0%4.3%2.2%0.8%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice12.3%28.9%45.0%11.6%2.2%
2.8%4.1%4.2%3.3%1.5%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice18.0%32.4%42.2%7.0%0.4%
5.7%7.5%8.7%2.2%0.4%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice18.6%38.5%33.4%7.8%1.8%
3.7%5.0%3.8%2.0%1.0%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice13.5%27.2%50.3%8.5%0.4%
2.2%3.3%4.2%2.2%0.2%
Education
HS Diploma or Less12.4%25.4%45.1%14.5%2.7%
3.1%4.0%4.8%3.0%1.2%
Some College14.4%28.9%48.6%7.5%0.5%
2.3%3.0%3.1%1.2%0.2%
Bachelor's Degree or More17.3%31.2%44.4%6.2%0.9%
2.4%2.6%2.8%1.0%0.3%

 
 82 
Table A10. Comfort with Asking Key Questions 
A10a. How comfortable would you be asking your financial professional the "Key Questions to 
Ask" provided in the Relationship Summary? 
 
 
A10b. In the previous question, you indicated that you would not be comfortable asking certain 
questions. Please tell us more about why you would not be comfortable. For each row, check all 
that apply 
All re s ponde nts
Very 
Comfortable
Somewhat 
comfortableNeutral
Somewhat 
uncomfortable
Very 
uncomfortable
56.8%20.2%17.8%3.9%1.3%
2.2%1.6%2.1%1.0%0.5%
56.4%23.7%14.3%3.9%1.7%
2.2%1.8%2.0%1.0%0.5%
62.4%19.2%12.7%3.8%1.9%
2.3%1.7%2.0%0.8%0.8%
51.0%23.4%17.8%6.5%1.3%
2.2%1.8%2.2%1.1%0.4%
48.3%24.3%20.2%5.1%2.2%
2.2%1.8%2.1%0.8%0.9%
60.6%24.0%10.8%2.5%2.1%
2.3%2.0%1.6%0.8%1.2%
64.2%20.3%11.6%1.5%2.4%
2.3%2.0%1.6%0.4%1.3%
40.8%26.3%19.1%11.6%2.2%
2.1%1.9%1.8%2.0%0.5%
i. What is your relevant experience, including your licenses, education, and other qualifications? Please 
explain what the abbreviations in your licenses are and what they mean.42.6%30.5%15.9%9.0%2.1%
2.1%2.2%1.8%1.4%0.5%
58.0%22.1%13.7%4.6%1.6%
2.3%2.0%1.8%1.3%0.5%
a. Given my financial situation, why should I choose an advisory account? Why should I choose a 
brokerage account?
b. Do the math for me. How much would I expect to pay per year for an advisory account? How 
much for a typical brokerage account? What would make those fees more or less? What services will 
I receive for those fees?
c. What additional costs should I expect in connection with my account? 
d. Tell me how you and your firm make money in connection with my account. Do you or your firm 
receive any payments from anyone besides me in connection with my investments?
e. What are the most common conflicts of interest in your advisory and brokerage accounts? Explain 
how you will address those conflicts when providing services to my account.
f. How will you choose investments to recommend for my account? 
g. How often will you monitor my account’s performance and offer investment advice?
h. Do you or your firm have a disciplinary history? For what type of conduct? 
j. Who is the primary contact person for my account, and is he or she a representative of an 
investment adviser or a broker-dealer? What can you tell me about his or her legal obligations to me? 
If I have concerns about how this person is treating me, who can I talk to?

 
 83 
  
Table A11. Likelihood of Asking Other Key Questions 
Question Q3. How likely would you be to ask your financial professional each of the following 
questions if they were included in the "Key Questions to Ask" section of the Relationship 
Summary? 
 
A11a. If I give you $1,000 to invest, how much will go to fees and costs, and how much will be 
invested for me? 
All re s ponde nts  who re porte d "Some what uncomforable " or "Ve ry uncomfortable ."
Don't 
Understand 
Question
Don't Think I 
Would 
Understand 
Not 
Appropriate
Don't Know 
EnoughOther
4.3%22.6%20.2%35.2%17.8%
2.5%12.8%8.0%8.9%6.4%
4.6%22.7%17.2%34.1%21.4%
2.9%11.9%8.8%8.7%6.8%
7.7%19.9%15.6%43.0%13.8%
4.6%11.7%7.6%10.3%5.2%
3.1%16.7%17.6%42.9%19.7%
1.8%8.9%4.3%7.6%4.9%
13.4%13.6%14.2%42.5%16.3%
9.6%4.2%6.2%7.9%4.6%
18.4%13.7%5.9%31.6%30.4%
14.7%6.6%3.1%12.5%18.1%
21.8%6.0%4.6%27.1%40.4%
17.1%4.2%2.9%11.7%19.5%
1.0%9.9%37.1%25.6%26.4%
0.8%5.4%8.4%5.4%7.3%
3.5%12.6%24.7%29.1%30.1%
1.7%4.8%5.6%5.2%8.4%
7.3%13.1%10.2%27.8%41.6%
5.3%7.6%4.4%7.6%12.5%
f. How will you choose investments to recommend for my account? 
g. How often will you monitor my account’s performance and offer investment advice?
a. Given my financial situation, why should I choose an advisory account? Why should I choose a 
brokerage account?
b. Do the math for me. How much would I expect to pay per year for an advisory account? How 
much for a typical brokerage account? What would make those fees more or less? What services 
will I receive for those fees?
c. What additional costs should I expect in connection with my account? 
d. Tell me how you and your firm make money in connection with my account. Do you or your firm 
receive any payments from anyone besides me in connection with my investments?
e. What are the most common conflicts of interest in your advisory and brokerage accounts? Explain 
how you will address those conflicts when providing services to my account.
h. Do you or your firm have a disciplinary history? For what type of conduct? 
i. What is your relevant experience, including your licenses, education, and other qualifications? 
Please explain what the abbreviations in your licenses are and what they mean.
j. Who is the primary contact person for my account, and is he or she a representative of an 
investment adviser or a broker-dealer? What can you tell me about his or her legal obligations to 
me? If I have concerns about how this person is treating me, who can I talk to?

 
 84 
 
 
A11b.  If I trade more investments in my brokerage account, do you (my broker) make more 
money? 
 
 
A11c.  If I add more money or investments to my advisory account, do you (my investment 
advisor) make more money? 
 
Re s ponde nt Group
Very Likely
Somewhat 
likely
Not too 
likely
Not at all 
Likely
All Respondents65.4%25.9%6.7%2.0%
2.3%2.3%1.2%0.8%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor60.6%31.4%5.6%2.4%
4.4%4.4%1.5%1.0%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice65.8%26.3%6.1%1.8%
4.4%4.2%2.3%1.0%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice57.6%32.7%9.7%0.0%
9.4%9.9%5.6%0.0%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice70.3%16.7%7.3%5.7%
4.8%3.4%1.9%4.4%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice72.5%20.8%6.5%0.1%
3.4%2.8%2.2%0.1%
Education
HS Diploma or Less60.2%29.3%6.6%3.9%
5.0%5.0%2.4%2.1%
Some College66.6%26.9%5.7%0.9%
3.2%3.0%2.0%0.4%
Bachelor's Degree or More70.1%21.4%7.6%0.8%
2.6%2.4%1.5%0.4%
Re s ponde nt Group
Very Likely
Somewhat 
likely
Not too 
likely
Not at all 
Likely
All Respondents48.3%31.6%16.0%4.1%
2.2%2.1%1.9%1.0%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor49.1%35.0%10.1%5.7%
4.3%4.3%2.2%1.7%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice49.5%32.9%15.7%1.9%
4.3%4.0%3.0%1.0%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice45.0%23.3%29.7%2.1%
8.2%7.6%9.7%1.5%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice48.4%27.8%14.5%9.3%
4.6%3.8%2.8%4.8%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice48.1%34.0%15.8%2.1%
4.2%4.2%3.0%1.2%
Education
HS Diploma or Less46.8%34.4%13.3%5.5%
4.8%4.6%4.1%2.2%
Some College51.1%32.0%14.0%2.9%
3.1%2.8%2.7%1.2%
Bachelor's Degree or More47.9%28.1%20.5%3.6%
2.8%2.5%2.5%1.3%

 
 85 
 
 
A11d. If I invest in funds created or managed by your firm, do you or your firm make more 
money than if I buy a fund created by (or managed by) someone else? 
 
 
 
 
A11e. How do you (my broker or advisor) get paid? 
 
Re s ponde nt Group
Very Likely
Somewhat 
likely
Not too 
likely
Not at all 
Likely
All Respondents47.1%33.2%15.2%4.5%
2.2%2.2%1.9%1.0%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor47.1%40.1%6.5%6.3%
4.3%4.3%1.5%1.8%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice48.5%32.4%16.4%2.7%
4.3%4.4%3.0%1.2%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice47.8%26.0%23.8%2.4%
8.5%7.7%9.7%1.6%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice47.4%25.3%18.1%9.2%
4.6%3.7%3.5%4.8%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice44.6%36.4%16.8%2.2%
4.1%4.4%3.1%1.2%
Education
HS Diploma or Less42.6%38.4%13.2%5.8%
4.6%4.7%4.1%2.2%
Some College53.5%32.1%11.3%3.1%
3.1%3.0%2.1%1.2%
Bachelor's Degree or More47.1%28.5%20.4%4.1%
2.8%2.6%2.4%1.3%
Re s ponde nt Group
Very 
Likely
Somewhat 
likely
Not too 
likely
Not at all 
Likely
All Respondents46.7%33.1%16.7%3.6%
2.2%2.3%1.6%1.0%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor46.7%36.1%12.3%4.9%
4.3%4.3%2.2%1.6%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice48.2%31.3%18.3%2.2%
4.3%4.1%3.1%1.0%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice39.7%34.9%24.6%0.8%
7.6%9.7%7.3%0.5%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice48.8%27.8%13.4%10.0%
4.6%3.8%3.0%4.8%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice47.9%34.4%17.4%0.3%
4.2%4.4%3.1%0.2%
Education
HS Diploma or Less40.6%40.1%14.9%4.4%
4.6%4.9%3.0%2.1%
Some College54.4%28.2%14.2%3.2%
3.1%2.7%2.5%1.2%
Bachelor's Degree or More47.3%29.2%20.5%2.9%
2.8%2.6%2.5%1.2%

 
 86 
 
 
 
  
Re s ponde nt Group
Very 
Likely
Somewhat 
likely
Not too 
likely
Not at all 
Likely
All Respondents49.2%31.0%13.0%6.8%
2.2%2.2%1.5%1.7%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor47.4%35.4%10.8%6.4%
4.3%4.3%2.1%1.8%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice48.8%33.2%14.3%3.7%
4.3%4.3%3.0%1.4%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice44.2%27.0%13.4%15.3%
8.1%7.8%6.2%9.3%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice55.0%21.7%14.2%9.1%
4.7%3.6%2.7%4.5%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice50.8%32.6%12.9%3.7%
4.2%4.4%3.1%1.6%
Education
HS Diploma or Less45.6%33.0%9.7%11.6%
4.7%4.7%2.7%4.1%
Some College52.0%30.2%13.4%4.4%
3.1%3.0%2.3%1.5%
Bachelor's Degree or More50.8%29.4%16.3%3.4%
2.9%2.7%2.4%0.9%

 
 87 
Table A12. Opinions about Length of Relationship Summary 
Question L1.  Is the Relationship Summary too long, too short, or about right? Select one.  
 
 
 
Table A13. Preference for Question-and-Answer Format 
Question D2. Would you prefer that the Relationship Summary be presented in a question and 
answer format? For example, the section titled "Types of Relationships and Services" would 
instead be titled "What Types of Services Does the Firm Provide". 
 
Re s ponde nt Group
Too longToo shortAbout right
All Respondents56.9%1.8%41.2%
2.2%0.6%2.2%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor57.0%2.1%40.9%
4.5%1.2%4.5%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice55.6%2.3%42.0%
4.4%1.5%4.3%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice65.3%0.3%34.4%
8.1%0.3%8.0%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice53.9%1.8%44.3%
4.6%0.9%4.6%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice55.1%2.0%42.8%
4.3%1.4%4.3%
Education
HS Diploma or Less54.4%2.2%43.4%
4.8%1.3%4.8%
Some College59.7%1.5%38.8%
3.1%0.6%3.0%
Bachelor's Degree or More57.5%1.7%40.8%
2.8%0.8%2.8%
Re s ponde nt Group
YesNo
All Respondents60.8%39.2%
2.2%2.2%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor62.3%37.7%
4.3%4.3%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice62.5%37.5%
4.2%4.2%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice66.0%34.0%
7.5%7.5%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice52.1%47.9%
4.7%4.7%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice60.1%39.9%
4.1%4.1%
Education
HS Diploma or Less64.1%35.9%
4.6%4.6%
Some College63.5%36.5%
3.0%3.0%
Bachelor's Degree or More55.2%44.8%
2.8%2.8%

 
 88 
Table A14. Helpfulness of Side-by-Side Comparison 
 
Question D4. Does the side-by-side comparison in the Relationship Summary help you to decide 
whether a broker-dealer or investment adviser account would be right for you? 
 
 
  
Re s ponde nt Group
Yes
No
All Respondents
84.8%
15.2%
1.8%
1.8%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor
76.9%
23.1%
3.5%
3.5%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice
91.0%
9.0%
2.5%
2.5%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice
77.0%
23.0%
8.6%
8.6%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice
92.4%
7.6%
2.0%
2.0%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice
87.0%
13.0%
3.6%
3.6%
Education
HS Diploma or Less
79.1%
20.9%
4.1%
4.1%
Some College
85.5%
14.5%
2.3%
2.3%
Bachelor's Degree or More
90.7%
9.3%
1.9%
1.9%

 
 89 
Table A15. Likelihood of Clicking on Hyperlinks 
Question D5. If the Relationship Summary contained links to the following types of additional 
information, how likely would you be to click on them? 
 
A15a. Information on services 
 
 
A15b. Information on fees 
 
Re s ponde nt Group
Very 
Likely
Somewhat 
likely
Not too 
likely
Not at all 
Likely
All Respondents36.0%46.9%13.6%3.5%
2.0%2.2%1.8%0.9%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor36.3%50.5%10.7%2.6%
4.2%4.3%2.2%0.9%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice39.4%45.2%11.0%4.4%
4.3%4.3%2.7%1.7%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice29.0%43.4%26.8%0.9%
6.0%8.1%9.7%0.6%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice41.8%39.1%11.7%7.4%
4.5%4.4%2.9%4.4%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice31.3%52.9%13.8%2.0%
3.5%4.1%2.7%0.8%
Education
HS Diploma or Less36.3%47.3%11.7%4.7%
4.4%4.7%3.9%2.2%
Some College33.8%52.0%11.6%2.5%
2.8%3.1%1.9%0.8%
Bachelor's Degree or More37.4%42.5%17.1%3.0%
2.6%2.8%2.6%0.8%
Re s ponde nt Group
Very 
Likely
Somewhat 
likely
Not too 
likely
Not at all 
Likely
All Respondents57.8%31.6%7.8%2.8%
2.3%2.2%1.1%0.9%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor52.8%33.4%11.2%2.6%
4.3%4.3%2.4%1.0%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice57.0%31.8%8.0%3.3%
4.3%4.2%2.4%1.5%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice42.3%47.3%9.6%0.9%
7.7%8.6%3.4%0.6%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice71.4%19.6%2.6%6.3%
4.7%3.3%0.9%4.4%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice64.2%28.6%6.1%1.1%
4.0%3.8%1.7%0.4%
Education
HS Diploma or Less51.0%34.6%9.7%4.7%
4.8%4.8%2.2%2.2%
Some College59.4%29.0%9.5%2.1%
3.2%3.0%2.2%0.8%
Bachelor's Degree or More63.6%30.5%4.5%1.4%
2.9%2.9%0.8%0.5%

 
 90 
A15c. Information on conflicts of interest 
 
 
 
A15d. Investor education materials 
 
Re s ponde nt Group
Very 
Likely
Somewhat 
likely
Not too 
likely
Not at all 
Likely
All Respondents30.4%37.1%27.8%4.7%
1.9%2.1%2.1%1.1%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor34.5%43.2%19.0%3.3%
4.2%4.3%2.8%1.2%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice29.7%40.6%23.1%6.5%
3.9%4.2%3.7%2.3%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice23.8%25.6%49.1%1.5%
5.5%5.8%8.5%0.8%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice32.7%38.1%21.1%8.1%
4.1%4.4%3.2%4.8%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice28.2%30.9%37.1%3.8%
3.8%3.4%4.4%1.0%
Education
HS Diploma or Less32.2%33.1%29.7%5.0%
4.2%4.2%4.9%2.2%
Some College29.0%39.4%26.9%4.7%
2.6%3.2%2.6%1.7%
Bachelor's Degree or More29.5%39.4%26.6%4.5%
2.6%2.8%2.4%1.3%
Re s ponde nt Group
Very 
Likely
Somewhat 
likely
Not too 
likely
Not at all 
Likely
All Respondents25.3%41.1%25.8%7.8%
1.8%2.1%2.0%1.4%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor29.2%45.9%19.4%5.5%
4.1%4.3%2.9%1.5%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice30.3%37.1%22.0%10.6%
3.8%4.1%3.4%3.4%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice17.5%35.4%45.1%2.1%
4.6%7.2%8.8%1.0%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice23.0%42.3%22.3%12.4%
3.3%4.6%3.4%4.8%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice20.4%42.8%29.5%7.2%
2.9%4.3%3.8%2.4%
Education
HS Diploma or Less26.8%37.5%25.4%10.3%
3.9%4.5%4.6%3.1%
Some College28.2%42.7%24.5%4.6%
2.7%3.1%2.6%1.0%
Bachelor's Degree or More21.3%43.8%27.2%7.7%
2.0%2.8%2.5%1.9%

 
 91 
 
Table A16. Preference for Relationship Summary Format 
 
Question D6. In which format would you be most likely to review the information in the 
Relationship Summary? Select one.  
 
  
Re s ponde nt Group
On PaperEmailFirm SiteVideo
Don't 
KnowOther
All Respondents38.6%19.2%24.1%7.3%10.0%0.8%
2.1%1.8%2.1%1.3%1.4%0.2%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor33.8%21.8%19.5%6.3%18.4%0.2%
3.7%4.0%3.9%1.5%3.3%0.1%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice38.9%19.8%25.4%7.2%8.2%0.5%
4.1%3.9%3.9%1.9%2.5%0.3%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice39.6%15.0%24.1%15.4%5.7%0.2%
8.0%4.7%9.1%7.7%2.1%0.2%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice39.1%14.9%28.9%6.0%9.2%2.0%
4.4%3.2%3.9%1.9%4.4%0.8%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice43.8%21.1%24.8%4.3%4.7%1.3%
4.1%3.9%3.9%1.3%1.8%0.5%
Education
HS Diploma or Less34.1%20.4%19.2%9.6%16.6%0.0%
4.1%4.1%4.6%3.1%3.2%0.0%
Some College42.1%19.3%23.1%6.7%7.6%1.2%
3.0%2.6%2.8%1.7%1.9%0.4%
Bachelor's Degree or More40.9%17.7%30.2%5.3%4.7%1.3%
2.8%2.0%2.7%1.0%0.8%0.4%

 
 92 
Table A17. Preference for Receipt of Relationship Summary 
 
Question D7. If you chose to work with a financial professional, when would you like to receive 
a copy of the Relationship Summary? Check all that apply.  
1  At  the  outset  of  the  relationship  (i.e.,  before  or  at  the  time  you  first  engage  the  investment 
professional) 
2 Before the investment professional first recommends a transaction or investment strategy 
3 Periodically (e.g. quarterly, semi-annually or annually) 
4 Upon request 
5 Whenever there is a material change in the Relationship Summary, such as a change in fees or 
commission structure. 
 
 
  
Re s ponde nt Group
At the 
Outset
Before a 
recommendationPeriodically
Upon 
Request
Whenever 
there is a 
change
All Respondents69.5%32.6%30.1%38.7%50.1%
2.1%2.0%2.0%2.2%2.2%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor56.6%36.3%30.2%46.1%48.7%
4.3%3.9%4.1%4.4%4.3%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice69.9%33.6%31.6%33.7%49.1%
4.3%4.1%4.1%4.0%4.3%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice68.4%30.3%36.6%32.3%39.0%
7.6%6.7%7.7%6.9%7.5%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice75.5%30.3%26.4%45.2%59.5%
4.6%4.0%4.1%4.8%4.7%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice82.1%30.0%26.4%34.4%53.6%
3.3%3.8%3.7%4.4%4.2%
Education
HS Diploma or Less55.8%29.3%31.5%36.2%39.0%
4.7%3.8%4.4%4.6%4.5%
Some College73.8%36.8%32.9%41.6%56.3%
2.8%3.1%3.0%3.1%3.1%
Bachelor's Degree or More81.3%33.1%26.2%39.1%57.4%
2.3%2.8%2.5%2.9%2.8%

 
 93 
 
 
Table A18. Preference for Receipt of Material Changes to Relationship Summary 
 
Question D8. If you had an ongoing relationship with a financial professional, how would you 
like to be informed of material changes in the information in the Relationship Summary? Check 
all that apply. 
1 I would like to receive a complete updated Relationship Summary with the changes highlighted 
2 I would like to receive a notice containing only the text of the specific changes 
3 I would like to receive a notice providing a summary of the changes 
4 I would like to receive a verbal explanation of the changes from my investment professional 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Re s ponde nt Group
Complete 
changed 
Relationship 
Summary
Notice 
containing 
changes
Notice 
summarizing 
changes
Verbal 
explanation of 
changes
All Respondents68.6%24.1%41.8%30.8%
2.2%2.0%2.1%2.1%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor66.2%30.2%40.9%31.6%
4.3%4.2%4.0%4.2%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice73.1%24.7%46.8%27.3%
4.1%3.7%4.4%3.7%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice70.0%17.6%32.2%34.9%
8.4%6.4%6.8%8.2%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice73.4%16.6%42.4%27.4%
3.3%2.8%4.5%3.6%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice61.6%25.4%42.8%34.2%
4.3%4.4%4.2%4.0%
Education
HS Diploma or Less64.7%30.2%36.7%33.0%
4.8%4.4%4.3%4.5%
Some College68.8%24.8%43.7%27.9%
2.9%2.8%3.1%2.6%
Bachelor's Degree or More72.8%16.7%45.8%30.8%
2.2%2.1%2.8%2.6%

 
 94 
Table A19. Likelihood of Looking Up Disciplinary History 
Question Q5. How likely would you be to look up the disciplinary history of your financial 
professional or firm based on the information in the Relationship Summary? Select one.  
 
 
 
  
Re s ponde nt Group
Very 
Likely
Somewhat 
likely
Not too 
likely
Not at all 
Likely
All Respondents42.2%34.5%18.0%5.3%
2.2%2.1%1.6%1.7%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor44.9%34.9%14.2%6.1%
4.3%4.1%3.0%1.8%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice43.7%38.2%15.7%2.3%
4.3%4.2%3.1%1.5%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice40.2%30.7%16.8%12.3%
8.3%7.5%4.6%9.4%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice44.5%28.4%20.6%6.5%
4.5%3.9%3.7%4.4%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice36.3%36.9%24.8%2.0%
4.3%3.9%3.5%1.2%
Education
HS Diploma or Less45.9%30.3%13.2%10.6%
4.8%4.2%2.8%4.1%
Some College41.5%38.0%17.2%3.3%
3.0%3.1%2.4%1.5%
Bachelor's Degree or More38.6%36.4%24.0%1.1%
2.7%2.8%2.5%0.4%

 
 95 
Table A20. Reasons Why Would Not Look Up Disciplinary History 
Question. What are some reasons why you would not look up the disciplinary history? Check all 
that apply.  
1 I don’t know where to get it 
2 It would take too much time or effort 
3 This information is not very important to me 
4 Other reason you would not look up history ____ 
Or  
5 I would definitely look it up 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Re s ponde nt Group
Don't know 
where to get it
Too much 
time/effort
Info is not 
important to meOther
I would 
look it up
All Respondents37.2%18.6%10.7%8.4%39.7%
2.1%1.8%1.3%1.7%2.1%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor34.7%11.2%14.5%1.4%47.2%
3.9%2.3%3.0%0.6%4.3%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice36.3%20.7%12.1%7.5%40.2%
4.1%4.1%2.9%2.5%4.1%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice40.6%20.9%10.5%14.2%28.6%
8.5%6.8%4.0%9.3%6.0%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice36.0%26.7%4.9%15.3%37.4%
4.5%4.4%1.3%4.7%4.1%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice40.4%17.6%8.9%9.4%38.6%
4.2%3.3%1.9%1.8%4.2%
Education
HS Diploma or Less30.6%14.6%15.7%7.5%40.6%
4.3%3.5%2.8%4.0%4.6%
Some College37.4%17.5%10.0%7.4%43.4%
3.3%2.8%2.0%1.7%3.0%
Bachelor's Degree or More44.2%23.7%5.8%10.2%35.8%
2.9%2.7%1.3%1.9%2.6%

 
 96 
Table A21. Helpfulness of Relationship Summary  
 
Question R1. If all broker-dealers and investment advisers were required to provide this type of 
Relationship Summary to clients, would it help you:  
 
R1a  Compare accounts offered by a firm? 
R1b. Compare accounts offered by different firms?  
R1c. Make more informed decisions about which types of investment accounts and services are 
right for you?  
 
 
 
  
Re s ponde nt Group
Compare 
accounts offered 
by a firm
Compare accounts 
offered by different 
firms
Make informed 
decisions
All Respondents87.5%83.7%89.6%
1.6%1.8%1.5%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor80.5%78.2%83.3%
4.0%4.2%3.9%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice90.8%86.5%91.1%
2.4%2.7%2.4%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice88.5%85.5%94.0%
5.7%5.9%2.7%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice87.7%84.6%88.3%
4.5%4.4%4.5%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice91.8%85.3%94.1%
1.8%3.1%1.7%
Education
HS Diploma or Less81.7%77.4%84.1%
3.8%4.1%3.4%
Some College87.0%85.2%90.0%
2.5%2.6%2.4%
Bachelor's Degree or More94.2%89.3%95.3%
1.0%1.4%1.0%

 
 97 
Table A22. Past Review of Documents 
 
Question R3. Many of the topics included in the Relationship Summary are currently contained 
in longer documents (such as an investment adviser’s Form ADV or a broker-dealer’s account 
opening agreement) that give you more details about services, costs, conflicts of interests, and 
other matters. Have you ever reviewed an investment adviser’s Form ADV or a broker-dealer’s 
account opening agreement? Select one.  
 
 
 
 
  
Re s ponde nt Group
Form 
ADV
Account 
opening 
agreement
Both
Neither
Don't 
know
All Respondents
1.7%
13.0%
10.9%
54.1%
20.4%
0.5%
1.7%
1.4%
2.3%
1.9%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor
1.5%
5.3%
9.1%
61.4%
22.6%
1.4%
1.9%
2.3%
4.2%
3.5%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice
0.9%
5.3%
10.3%
66.8%
16.6%
0.9%
1.4%
3.6%
4.2%
2.9%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice
2.8%
27.9%
11.3%
32.3%
25.7%
1.8%
8.8%
4.2%
6.6%
8.9%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice
2.4%
17.4%
10.8%
54.5%
14.9%
1.3%
3.4%
2.8%
4.6%
2.5%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice
1.4%
18.9%
13.8%
43.0%
22.9%
0.6%
2.9%
2.3%
4.4%
3.1%
Education
HS Diploma or Less
1.1%
10.5%
9.4%
51.9%
27.0%
0.8%
3.8%
2.8%
4.8%
4.3%
Some College
2.5%
10.9%
9.8%
59.7%
17.1%
1.6%
1.9%
1.6%
3.0%
2.2%
Bachelor's Degree or More
1.7%
17.2%
13.4%
52.0%
15.7%
0.5%
2.1%
2.2%
2.8%
1.7%

 
 98 
Table A23. Prospective Review of Documents 
 
Question R4. When choosing a financial professional, account type, or firm, which of the 
documents are you likely to read? 
 
 
 
 
  
Re s ponde nt Group
Only the 
longer 
documents
Only the 
Relationship 
SummaryBoth
Do not 
know
Would 
not read 
any of 
the docs
All Respondents1.4%24.5%44.7%25.2%4.2%
0.5%2.0%2.2%2.1%0.8%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor0.9%12.5%52.8%30.2%3.6%
0.9%3.5%4.3%3.7%1.3%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice1.2%27.5%45.9%21.0%4.4%
0.9%4.3%4.2%3.3%1.9%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice2.9%23.1%37.0%32.7%4.2%
2.0%6.1%7.7%9.9%1.9%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice1.6%34.1%37.5%21.6%5.1%
1.4%4.5%4.2%4.5%1.6%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice1.3%30.0%43.4%21.4%3.9%
0.8%3.9%4.2%3.0%1.5%
Education
HS Diploma or Less1.8%17.1%44.9%32.0%4.2%
1.0%3.9%4.7%4.8%1.3%
Some College1.7%21.4%46.7%24.7%5.5%
1.0%2.5%3.1%2.7%1.8%
Bachelor's Degree or More0.9%35.1%42.8%18.2%3.1%
0.5%2.9%2.8%1.9%0.9%

 
 99 
Table A24. Agreement with Statements about Helpfulness of Relationship Summary 
Question R5. Please indicate whether you agree with the following statements.  
 
A23a.  The  Relationship  Summary  would  help  me  understand  the  key  terms  and  conflicts  of 
interest that apply to the relationship with the investment professional.  
 
 
 
A23b. I would use the Relationship Summary as the basis for a conversation with an investment 
professional. 
  
Re s ponde nt Group
Strongly 
AgreeAgree
Neither 
Agree Nor 
DisagreeDisagree
Strongly 
Disagree
All Respondents28.7%47.7%20.2%2.2%1.1%
1.9%2.2%2.1%0.5%0.4%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor26.1%44.5%26.1%2.3%1.1%
3.2%4.4%3.8%1.1%0.5%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice27.7%53.0%14.8%2.4%2.2%
3.8%4.3%3.4%1.3%1.5%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice22.2%44.2%33.2%0.4%0.0%
5.6%8.5%9.5%0.4%0.0%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice34.6%46.8%16.3%2.1%0.2%
4.6%4.5%4.4%0.9%0.2%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice33.5%48.1%13.6%3.6%1.1%
4.1%4.2%2.9%1.6%0.7%
Education
HS Diploma or Less27.8%40.4%28.5%2.3%0.9%
3.9%4.7%4.8%1.1%0.4%
Some College25.1%54.3%17.2%1.1%2.3%
2.7%3.1%2.4%0.5%1.4%
Bachelor's Degree or More32.6%50.4%13.6%3.0%0.5%
2.6%2.8%2.2%0.9%0.4%
Re s ponde nt Group
Strongly 
AgreeAgree
Neither 
Agree Nor 
DisagreeDisagree
Strongly 
Disagree
All Respondents31.5%44.5%20.7%2.5%0.9%
2.0%2.2%2.1%0.7%0.3%
By Investor Group
(0) Not an Investor28.0%42.6%25.8%1.6%2.0%
4.0%4.3%3.7%1.0%1.0%
(1) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, No Advice34.2%46.1%14.7%4.2%0.7%
4.3%4.3%2.7%2.0%0.4%
(2) Investor, Less Involved Account Types, Advice22.1%47.7%26.8%3.0%0.4%
5.2%8.6%9.6%1.9%0.4%
(3) Investor, More Involved Account Types, No Advice34.7%38.2%25.0%1.7%0.3%
4.6%4.1%4.9%0.7%0.3%
(4) Investor, More Involved Account Types, Advice36.4%47.7%13.8%1.8%0.2%
4.0%4.2%3.2%0.8%0.2%
Education
HS Diploma or Less30.6%40.1%25.4%2.5%1.5%
4.3%4.7%4.6%1.1%0.7%
Some College27.7%48.0%21.0%2.5%0.8%
2.7%3.1%2.7%1.5%0.4%
Bachelor's Degree or More35.4%46.6%15.3%2.5%0.2%
2.7%2.8%2.1%0.9%0.2%

 
 100 
Appendix 3: Interview Recruiting Script 
RAND Recruitment Screener: Investment Advice Interview 
 
 
 
PARTICIPANT NAME: _________________________________________________________ 
 
 
ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
PHONE NUMBER(S):  DAY: ______________________ EVENING: ____________________ 
 
RECRUITED FOR: DATE: _____________________   TIME: ________________________ 
 
REMINDER PHONE CALL? DATE: _______________ 
 
 BROKER DEALER OR INVESTMENT ADVISER EXPERIENCE:  YES / NO 
  
 GENDER: M / F   
    
 AGE: 18-45 / 46 OR OLDER  
 
 RACE:  WHITE, NON-HISPANIC / OTHER 
 
EDUCATION:  UP TO BACHELOR’S/ MORE THAN BACHELOR’S 
 
 
 

 
 101 
Recruitment Goals and Quotas: 
 
 Recruit for 12-15 individual interviews. 
 Interviews are expected to last no longer than 1 hour. 
 LOCATION: TBD 
 DATES:  TBD 
 CRITERIA FOR INTERVIEWS:  
 Respondents should not have participated in an interview within the last 6 months. 
 Overall, participants should meet the following: 
o Education: at least 1/4 with no bachelor’s, but no more than ¾ with no bachelor’s 
o Gender: at least 1/3 women, but no more than 2/3  
o Race: at least 1/3 white, non-Hispanic, but no more than 4/5  
o Age: at least 1/3 aged 45 or younger, but no more than 2/3 
o Broker Dealer or Investment Adviser experience: at least 1/3 have experience working with 
an investment professional (broker-dealer or investment adviser), but no more than 2/3 
 

 
 102 
INTRO WHEN PERSON ANSWERS THE PHONE: 
 
Hello, my name is _____________ from __________________, a local research firm here in 
_____________.  We are working with the RAND Corporation
34
 on a project about the financial 
services industry. I’m calling today about a project that we are doing to find out how 
representatives of the financial services industry interact with individuals in providing 
information regarding potential investments. 
 
If you are interested in helping with the project and you meet its requirements, we will invite you 
to come to an interview at {LOCATION}.  Your opinions will help us to understand how 
representatives from the financial services industry interact with individual investors and what 
individual investors understand about the roles and responsibilities of various financial 
representatives.  It would take about one hour of your time, and we would pay you $XX for 
participating.  May I ask you a few questions to see if you qualify to participate?  
 
If needed, explain further:  Since we need to include people who are a mix of different 
backgrounds and experiences, there are some requirements that I have to check on for all 
of the people that we bring in to participate.  I need to ask you a few questions to see if 
you meet the requirements for participating in the interview.  
 
 YES 
→ 
Continue  
 NO → Thank & end 
 
 
1. Have you participated in an interview in the last 6 months? 
 YES 
→ Ineligible, 
Thank & end 
 NO  
 
 
2. Do you currently work in the financial services industry?  For example, do you work 
for a company such as an investment advisory firm, an investment management firm, a 
brokerage firm, or a financial planning? 
 YES 
→ INELIGIBLE - 
Thank & end  
 NO  
                                                 
34
 *If recruit asks about RAND Corporation, please say the following:  RAND is a 
non-profit research center based in Santa Monica California.   
 

 
 103 
 DON’T KNOW 
3. Are you involved with your household financial decisionmaking? 
 YES, solely responsible  
 YES, shared responsibility along with my spouse/partner  
 NO, my spouse/partner takes prime responsibility with little involvement from me → 
INELIGIBLE - 
Thank & end 
 
4. Do you currently have any investments in stocks or mutual funds? Please include any 
stocks or mutual funds held in dedicated retirement accounts, such as an IRA or 401(k) 
plan. 
 YES → 
Go to Question 5
 
 NO → 
INELIGIBLE - 
Thank & end 
 DON’T KNOW → 
INELIGIBLE - 
Thank & end 
 
 
5. Do you currently use any professional financial service providers for advising, choosing, 
managing and/or planning your stock and/or mutual fund investments? 
 YES → Code as BD/IA Experience, 
Go to Question 7 
 NO → 
Go to Question 6
 
 DON’T KNOW → 
Go to Question 6
 
 
6. In the past, have you used any professional financial service providers for advising, 
choosing, managing and/or planning your stock and/or mutual fund investments? 
 YES → 
Code as BD/IA Experience 
 NO → 
Code as No BD/IA Experience
 
 DON’T KNOW → 
Code as No BD/IA Experience
 
 
7. What is your gender?    
 FEMALE  
 MALE  
 
 
8. What is your birth date? 

 
 104 
___________/ ___________/ ___________ 
MONTH  DAY  YEAR  
 
CODE:  
 IF UNDER AGE 18 
→ Ineligible, 
Thank & end 
 
IF R REFUSES TO GIVE BIRTHDATE, ASK RANGE: 
 
 Under age 18 --
→ Ineligible, 
Thank & end 
 18 – 39 --
→ 
Continue, 
 40 or older --
→ 
Continue 
 
 
9. What is the highest level of school you have completed or the highest degree you have 
received? {Do not read options.}  
 LESS THAN 1
st
 GRADE 
 1
st
, 2
nd
, 3
rd
, or 4
th
 GRADE 
 5
th
 OR 6
th
 GRADE 
 7
th
 OR 8
th
 GRADE 
 9
th
 GRADE 
 10
th
 GRADE 
 11
th
 GRADE 
 12
th
 GRADE NO DIPLOMA 
 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA  
OR THE EQUIVALENT (FOR EXAMPLE: GED) 
 SOME COLLEGE BUT NO DEGREE 
 ASSOCIATE DEGREE IN COLLEGE  
OCCUPATIONAL/VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 
 ASSOCIATE DEGREE IN COLLEGE ACADEMIC PROGRAM 
 BACHELOR'S DEGREE (FOR EXAMPLE: BA, AB, BS) 
 MASTER'S DEGREE (FOR EXAMPLE: MA, MS, MENG, MED, MSW, MBA) 
 PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL DEGREE (FOR EXAMPLE: MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD) 
 DOCTORATE DEGREE (FOR EXAMPLE: PHD, EDD) 
 
10. Do you consider yourself Hispanic or Latino? 
 YES 

 
 105 
 NO  
 
 
11. Do you consider yourself primarily white or Caucasian, Black or African American, 
American Indian, or Asian? 
 WHITE/CAUCASIAN 
 BLACK/AFRICAN AMERICAN 
 AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKAN NATIVE 
 ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER 
 OTHER 
 
 
 
  

 
 106 
INVITATION IF INDIVIDUAL MEETS RECRUITING CRITERIA: 
 
Thank you for answering all of my questions.  It looks like you meet the requirements to 
participate in a session to discuss investors’ expectations and actual experiences with the 
financial services industry.  We are conducting interviews on (OFFER DATES/TIMES).  
Would you like to take part in this research? 
 
 YES 
→ 
Continue  
 NO → Thank & end 
 
I will send you a letter with the date, time, and location of the interview, including directions.  
 
I will call you a few days before the interview to confirm the date and time.  Again, this should 
take no more than one hour of your time.  You will receive $XX as a thank you for your 
participation.    
 
Let me just mention three things:   
1) If you wear reading glasses, please be sure to bring them, as you will be asked to read 
some materials;  
2) Please be aware that we have a no-smoking policy; and 
3) If you care for children please do not bring them with you because there is no child-care 
available at the facility. 
4) Interviews will be audio-recorded. The recordings will be transcribed and we will destroy 
the recordings once the transcripts are completed. 
 
 
Now, let me just get the spelling of your name, address, and phone number in case we need to 
get in touch with you.  {Record respondent’s information.} 
 
 
Name:_______________________________Telephone:________________________ 
 
Address:_______________________________________________________________ 
 
City, State:____________________________________________Zip:__________________ 
 
 
If you have any questions or find that you can’t attend, please call us right away at {insert phone 
number} so that we can find a replacement.  Thank you for your time and for agreeing to help. 
  

 
 107 
Appendix 4: Interview Survey 
INTERVIEW – PRE-SURVEY 
 
1. We would like to know about the types of investment accounts your household owns. Which types 
of accounts does your household own?       
Choose one per row: 
Yes No 
 
Don’t 
know 
 
Employer-sponsored retirement account (for example, 401(k), 403(b), SEP-IRA, or 
Thrift Savings Plan) 
   
Other retirement investment account (for example, Traditional IRA or Roth IRA)    
529 Plan (college savings plan)    
Investment account not listed above (for example, brokerage or advisory account)    
 
2. In the phone call inquiring about your interest in participating in this interview, you were asked 
whether you currently work with a financial professional or have worked with one in the past.   
Do you currently work with, or have you in past worked with, professional financial service providers 
for advising, choosing, managing and/or planning your stock and/or mutual fund investments? 
Check one: 
_____ Currently 
_____ In the past 
_____ No 
 
 
3. If you currently or in the past have worked with a financial professional: 
There are two general categories of professional who help investors with investments, broker-dealers 
and investment advisers, although some representatives may be both.  Are you aware of which 
category your financial professional falls into? 
 
Check one: 
_____ Broker Dealer 
_____ Investment Adviser 
_____ Both Broker Dealer and Investment Adviser 
_____ Don’t Know 
_____ Other ________________________________ 
 

 
 108 
 
Appendix 5: Sample Relationship Summary for Interviews 
Which Type of Account is Right for You — Brokerage, Investment Advisory or Both? 
 
There are different ways you can get help with your investments.  You should carefully consider 
which types of accounts and services are right for you.   
 
Depending on your needs and investment objectives, we can provide you with services in a 
brokerage account, investment advisory account, or both at the same time.  This document 
gives you a summary of the types of services we provide and how you pay.  Please ask us for 
more information.  There are some suggested questions on page 4. 
Broker-Dealer Services 
Brokerage Accounts 
Investment Adviser Services 
Advisory Accounts 
 Types of Relationships and Services.   Our accounts and services fall into two categories. 
 If you open a brokerage account, you will pay 
us a transaction-based fee, generally referred 
to as a commission, every time you buy or sell 
an investment.  
 You may select investments or we may 
recommend investments for your account, 
but the ultimate investment decision for your 
investment strategy and the purchase or sale 
of investments will be yours.   
 We can offer you additional services to assist 
you in developing and executing your 
investment strategy and monitoring the 
performance of your account but you might 
pay more.  We will deliver account statements 
to you each quarter in paper or electronically.  
 We offer a limited selection of 
investments.  Other firms could offer a wider 
range of choices, some of which might have 
lower costs. 
 If you open an advisory account, you will pay 
an on-going asset-based fee for our services. 
 We will offer you advice on a regular basis.  
We will discuss your investment goals design 
with you a strategy to achieve your 
investment goals, and regularly monitor your 
account.  We will contact you (by phone or e-
mail) at least quarterly to discuss your 
portfolio.  
 You can choose an account that allows us to 
buy and sell investments in your account 
without asking you in advance (a 
“discretionary account”) or we may give you 
advice and you decide what investments  to 
buy and sell (a “non-discretionary account”).   
 Our investment advice will cover a limited 
selection of investments.  Other firms could 
provide advice on a wider range of choices, 
some of which might have lower costs. 
Our Obligations to You.  We must abide by certain laws and regulations in our interactions 
with you. 
 We must act in your best interest and not 
place our interests ahead of yours when 
 We are held to a fiduciary standard that 
covers our entire investment advisory 

 
 109 
Broker-Dealer Services 
Brokerage Accounts 
Investment Adviser Services 
Advisory Accounts 
we recommend an investment or an 
investment strategy involving securities.  
When we provide any service to you, we 
must treat you fairly and comply with a 
number of specific obligations.  Unless we 
agree otherwise, we are not required to 
monitor your portfolio or investments on 
an ongoing basis.  
 Our interests can conflict with your 
interests.  When we provide 
recommendations, we must eliminate 
these conflicts or tell you about them and 
in some cases reduce them. 
relationship with you.  For example, we are 
required to monitor your portfolio, 
investment strategy and investments on an 
ongoing basis. 
 Our interests can conflict with your interests.  
We must eliminate these conflicts or tell you 
about them in a way you can understand, so 
that you can decide whether or not to agree 
to them. 
 
Fees and Costs.  Fees and costs affect the value of your account over time.  Please ask your 
financial professional to give you personalized information on the fees and costs that you 
will pay.   

 
 110 
Broker-Dealer Services 
Brokerage Accounts 
Investment Adviser Services 
Advisory Accounts 
 Transaction-based fees.  You will pay us a fee 
every time you buy or sell an investment.  This 
fee, commonly referred to as a commission, is 
based on the specific transaction and not the 
value of your account. 
With stocks or exchange-traded funds, this fee 
is usually a separate commission.  With other 
investments, such as bonds, this fee might be 
part of the price you pay for the investment 
(called a “mark-up” or “mark down”). With 
mutual funds, this fee (typically called a 
“load”) reduces the value of your investment.  
 Some investments (such as mutual funds and 
variable annuities) impose additional fees that 
will reduce the value of your investment over 
time.  Also, with certain investments such as 
variable annuities, you may have to pay fees 
such as “surrender charges” to sell the 
investment. 
 
 Our fees vary and are negotiable. The amount 
you pay will depend, for example, on how 
much you buy or sell, what type of investment 
you buy or sell, and what kind of account you 
have with us. 
 
 We charge you additional fees, such as 
custodian fees, account maintenance fees, 
and account inactivity fees.   
 
 The more transactions in your account, the 
more fees we charge you.  We therefore have 
an incentive to encourage you to engage in 
transactions. 
 
 From a cost perspective, you may prefer a 
transaction-based fee if you do not trade 
often or if you plan to buy and hold 
investments for longer periods of time. 
 Asset-based fees.  You will pay an on-going fee 
at the end of each quarter based on the value 
of the cash and investments in your advisory 
account. 
The amount paid to our firm and your 
financial professional generally does not vary 
based on the type of investments we select on 
your behalf.  The asset-based fee reduces the 
value of your account and will be deducted 
from your account. 
For some advisory accounts, called wrap fee 
programs, the asset-based fee will include 
most transaction costs and custody services, 
and as a result wrap fees are typically higher 
than non-wrap advisory fees. 
 Some investments (such as mutual funds and 
variable annuities) impose additional fees that 
will reduce the value of your investment over 
time.  Also, with certain investments such as 
variable annuities, you may have to pay fees 
such as “surrender charges” to sell the 
investment. 
 Our fees vary and are negotiable.  The amount 
you pay will depend, for example, on the 
services you receive and the amount of assets 
in your account. 
 
 For accounts not part of the wrap fee 
program, you will pay a transaction fee when 
we buy and sell an investment for you.  You 
will also pay fees to a broker-dealer or bank 
that will hold your assets (called “custody”). 
Although transaction fees are usually included 
in the wrap program fee, sometimes you will 
pay an additional transaction fee (for 
investments bought and sold outside the wrap 
fee program). 
 The more assets you have in the advisory 

 
 111 
Broker-Dealer Services 
Brokerage Accounts 
Investment Adviser Services 
Advisory Accounts 
 account, including cash, the more you will pay 
us.  We therefore have an incentive to 
increase the assets in your account in order to 
increase our fees. You pay our fee quarterly 
even if you do not buy or sell.   
 Paying for a wrap fee program could cost 
more than separately paying for advice and 
for transactions if there are infrequent trades 
in your account.   
 An asset-based fee may cost more than a 
transaction-based fee, but you may prefer an 
asset-based fee if you want continuing advice 
or want someone to make investment 
decisions for you.  You may prefer a wrap fee 
program if you prefer the certainty of a 
quarterly fee regardless of the number of 
transactions you have. 
Conflicts of Interest.  We benefit from the services we provide to you. 
 We can make extra money by selling you 
certain investments, such as mutual funds, 
either because they are managed by someone 
related to our firm or because they are 
offered by companies that pay our firm to 
offer their investments.  Your financial 
professional also receives more money if you 
buy these investments.  
 We have an incentive to offer or recommend 
certain investments, such as mutual funds, 
because the manager or sponsor of those 
 We can make extra money by advising you to 
invest in certain investments, such as mutual 
funds, because they are managed by someone 
related to our firm.  Your financial 
professional also receives more money if you 
buy these investments. 
 We have an incentive to advise you to invest 
in certain investments, such as mutual funds, 
because the manager or sponsor of those 
investments shares with us revenue it earns 
on those investments. 

 
 112 
Broker-Dealer Services 
Brokerage Accounts 
Investment Adviser Services 
Advisory Accounts 
investments shares with us revenue it earns 
on those investments.   
 We can buy investments from you, and sell 
investments to you, from our own accounts 
(called “acting as principal”).  We can earn a 
profit on these trades, so we have an 
incentive to encourage you to trade with us.   
 We can buy investments from you, and sell 
investments to you, from our own accounts 
(called “acting as principal”), but only with 
your specific approval on each transaction.  
We can earn a profit on these trades, so we 
have an incentive to encourage you to trade 
with us. 
Additional Information. We encourage you to seek out additional information.  
 We have legal and disciplinary events. Visit Investor.gov for a free and simple search tool to 
research our firm and our financial professionals. 
 For additional information about our brokers and services, visit Investor.gov or BrokerCheck 
(BrokerCheck.Finra.org), our website ABCFinServ.com, and your account agreement.  For 
additional information on advisory services, see our Form ADV brochure on IAPD, on Investor.gov, 
or on our website (ABCFinServe.com/FormADV) and any brochure supplement your financial 
professional provides.   
 To report a problem to the SEC, visit Investor.gov or call the SEC’s toll-free investor assistance line 
at (800) 732-0330. To report a problem to FINRA, visit www.FINRA.org/complaints.  If you have a 
problem with your investments, account or financial professional, please contact us in writing.   
Key Questions to Ask. Ask our financial professionals these key questions about our 
investment services and accounts.  
1. Given my financial situation, why should I choose an advisory account?  Why should I choose a 
brokerage account? 
2. Do the math for me.  How much would I expect to pay per year for an advisory account?  How 
much for a typical brokerage account?  What would make those fees more or less?  What 
services will I receive for those fees? 
3. What additional costs should I expect in connection with my account? 
4. Tell me how you and your firm make money in connection with my account.  Do you or your 
firm receive any payments from anyone besides me in connection with my investments? 
5. What are the most common conflicts of interest in your advisory and brokerage accounts?  
Explain how you will address those conflicts when providing services to my account.  
6. How will you choose investments to recommend for my account? 
7. How often will you monitor my account’s performance and offer investment advice? 
8. Do you or your firm have a disciplinary history?  For what type of conduct? 
9. What is your relevant experience, including your licenses, education, and other qualifications?  
Please explain what the abbreviations in your licenses are and what they mean.   
10. Who is the primary contact person for my account, and is he or she a representative of an 
investment adviser or a broker-dealer?  What can you tell me about his or her legal obligations 
to me?  If I have concerns about how this person is treating me, who can I talk to? 
 

 
 113 
 
 
Appendix 6: Interview Protocol 
READ COMPLETE INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT: 
We are holding these discussions so that we will have a better understanding of how investors 
interact with financial professionals.   
This is part of a public policy study being conducted by the RAND Corporation and funded by 
the federal government.  Your participation in this interview is voluntary and should take 
approximately 60 minutes.  You do not have to answer any questions you do not wish to. RAND 
will keep your answers completely private. The information you provide will be kept confidential 
and will be used for research purposes only.  RAND will not include your name in any summary 
reports. 
The session will be audio taped so that we make sure we capture the full discussion. The 
recordings will be stored on a secure computer. They will be transcribed and we will destroy the 
recordings once the transcripts are completed. Are you OK with this session being tape 
recorded?  
There are no anticipated risks to participating in this study. The anticipated benefit to 
participating in this study is gaining knowledge about financial professionals. If you have 
questions about the study, please contact Angela Hung at [email protected] or 310-393-0411 
x6081. 
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant or need to report a research-
related concern, you may contact RAND’s Human Subjects Protection Committee at 1-866-697-
5620 or [email protected] 
 
[PROVIDE PARTICIPANT WITH PRINTED COPY OF FORM CRS.]  
 
[DESCRIBE TO PARTICIPANT:] 
 Thank you for participating in today’s interview. Before we begin, let me briefly describe 
what we will do today.  
o First I’m going to have you to read a document and I’ll ask you what you are 
thinking when you read through each section of it.  Once you are done reading,  I 
will ask you some general questions about the section you read.  After we have 
read through the entire document,  we’ll look back at it together and discuss how 
this form relates to your own personal experiences. 
o There are no right or wrong answers for any of the questions I ask, we just want to 
know your thoughts about the document. 

 
 114 
o Do you have any questions?  [ANSWER AS NEEDED.] Great, let’s get started. 
A. REVIEW FORM SECTION-BY-SECTION TO ASSESS INTERPRETABILITY 
 
1. THINK-ALOUD METHOD – PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE ASKED TO TELL YOU 
WHAT THEY ARE THINKING AS THEY LOOK OVER EACH SECTION. 
 I’d like to start by having you to read this document. We will refer to this document as 
the Relationship Summary. The Relationship Summary is an example of a document that 
a broker or investment adviser might provide to a client before opening an account.  
 As you read through each section of the document, I want you to “think aloud.”  That 
means I want you to say out loud any thoughts that come to mind as you are reading.   
 For instance, you might come to a word that is unfamiliar and saying out loud “I’ve never 
heard that word used before” is something that is helpful for us to hear.  Or if you have to 
read something twice, saying “I need to read that again,” is helpful.   
 Let’s go section by section. As you read through each section, please tell me what comes 
to mind.  I may remind you to do that as you read it. 
 If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at any time.  Do you have any 
questions now? [ANSWER AS NEEDED] 
 Let’s start with the first section [NAME]. 
o Please take as much time as you need to read the section, let me know when you 
are finished. 
o PROBE AS NEEDED: Please keep talking. 
o NOTE: USE PROBES FROM #2 VERBAL PROBES [BELOW] IF PROBE 
NOT SPONTANEOUSLY ADDRESSED DURING THINK ALOUD.  
 Thank you let’s go on to the next section, [NAME].  
o Again, please take as much time as you need to read the section, let me know 
when you are finished. 
o PROBE AS NEEDED: Please keep talking. 
o NOTE: USE PROBES FROM #2 VERBAL PROBES [BELOW] IF PROBE 
NOT SPONTANEOUSLY ADDRESSED DURING THINK ALOUD.  
 INTERVIEWER GO THROUGH EACH SECTION. 
  

 
 115 
 
2. VERBAL PROBES: 
o APPLICABLE TO ANY SECTION: THESE PROBES WILL BE USED AT THE END OF 
THINK ALOUD FOR EACH SECTION.   CAN BE APPLIED TO ANY SECTION AND 
USED IF THIS INFORMATION IS NOT OFFERED BY THE RESPONDENT DIRECTLY 
THROUGH THE THINK ALOUD METHOD. 
 What do you believe this text is saying? 
 Were any parts of this section confusing? Which parts? 
 Were any specific words/statements unclear or hard to understand?  
 What do you think are the main points of this section? 
 
o AFTER THE THINK ALOUD WORK, ASK PROBES THAT HAVE NOT ALREADY 
BEEN ADDRESSED : SECTION-SPECIFIC – Thanks for your help with that.  Let’s go 
back now and talk about the document one section at a time. 
 First of all, what do you think are the main differences between the types of financial 
professionals being compared here? 
 Let’s look at the section on “types of relationships and services” where it says: “We 
offer a limited selection of investments. Other firms could offer a wider range of 
choices, some of which might have lower costs.”   
 What do you think this section is trying to tell you? 
 What additional questions do you have about the types of investments that the 
FP offers? 
 Let’s look at the section on “fees and costs,” where it says: “An asset‐based fee may 
cost more than a transaction‐based fee, but you may prefer an asset‐based fee if you 
want continuing advice or want someone to make investment decisions for you.”   
 What is the difference between the two types of fees?  
 What additional questions do you have about fees?  
 Let’s look at the section on “conflicts of interest.”  
 What does this mean to you?   
 How could conflicts of interest affect you?   
 What additional questions do you about conflicts of interest?  
 Let’s look at the section on “additional information”. 
 What do you believe this text is saying? 
 What do you think are the main points of this section? 
 Were any parts of this section confusing? Which parts? 

 
 116 
 Let’s look at the section on “key questions to ask”.  
 Which questions on this list are most important to you? 
 Which questions would you be most likely to ask of a financial professional? 
 Which of these questions are confusing or don’t make sense to you? 
 
 If a financial professional is supposed to monitor your investments on an on-going 
basis, what does that mean to you? 
 
 
REVIEW FORM AS A WHOLE TO UNDERSTAND PARTICIPANT REACTIONS AT HIGH 
LEVEL. 
Now let’s talk about the whole document. 
 PROBES: 
o ORGANIZATION - “Please take a moment to look at what the different sections 
of the form are, and what order they come in. Consider also the use of tables, 
bullet points, bold text, etc” 
 What aspects of the organization of the form do you like? 
 Which aspects of the organization of the form could use improvement? 
o LENGTH - “Consider the length of the form, as a whole, and in different 
sections.” 
 Does the form seem too short, too long, or just right in terms of length? 
 What about the sections? Which feel too short? Too long? The right 
length?  
o LANGUAGE 
 What did you think of the language used throughout the form?  
 Were there specific terms or phrases that you wish had been defined or 
explained more thoroughly? 
 What parts were easy to understand? 
 What parts were more difficult to understand?  
o METHOD OF DELIVERY – “We’re looking at a paper version of this form for 
now.” 
 Would you rather have this form in another format? (Can probe for online, 
mobile app, printed but different size).  
 What are your reactions to viewing it in this form? What other ways could 
it be provided to you, and how would you react to those ways?”) 
 

 
 117 
 
QUESTIONS ON PARTICIPANT APPLICATION OF FORM CONTENT, E.G.: 
Now let’s talk about how this form would apply to you. 
1. What information in the form was the most helpful to you?  
2. What was the least helpful? 
3. What information in the form was most surprising to you? 
4. What information do you wish had been included in the form? 
5. KNOWLEDGE OF FINANCIAL PROFESSIONALS 
a. In your own words, can you tell me the difference between a broker-deal and an 
investment adviser? 
b. Which of the two do you think would:   
i. Monitor your investments on an on-going basis?  If so, what do you think 
they monitor in your account?   
ii. Have an incentive to encourage you to buy and sell securities frequently?   
c.  Charge me a fee even if I don’t buy or sell any securities?   
6. ABILITY TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS USING THIS INFORMATION 
a. How helpful would this information be in making a decision about what type of 
financial professional to use (e.g., an investment adviser vs. a broker-dealer)? 
b. How helpful would it be in making a decision about the type of account to use?   
7. HOW IT INFORMS THEIR SEARCH PROCESS  
a. What is your current situation—do you have a financial professional or FP now; if 
so, how did you find the FP? 
b. How do you think this form would inform your search process for a financial 
professional or account type? 
8. COMPARISON TO EXISTING INFORMATION 
a. Have you ever reviewed an investment adviser’s Form ADV or a broker-dealer’s 
account opening agreement?   
b. Many of the issues disclosed in the form are currently contained in these longer 
documents that give you more details about services, costs, conflicts of interests, 
and other matters. Do you think you would review those longer documents from 
your FP, would you review this form, or both or neither?   
c. Which document would you like to use as the basis for a conversation with an 
investment professional?   
9. How helpful would the form be in comparing information across financial professionals? 
a. After receiving this form, would you change anything about what you are looking 
for in an FP?  

 
 118 
b. Would you seek out additional information about a firm’s disciplinary history as 
suggested in the form? (note: this relates to the additional information and key 
questions to ask sections of the form) 
c. Are there questions you would want to ask your (prospective or current) FP after 
reading this form?  What questions? 
10. If you had to choose a brokerage or advisory account now on the basis of this form, 
which do you think you would choose?  
a. Why?  
b. What led you to that answer?  
11. If someone was making the decision based on cost alone, what kind of investor do you 
think would be better off with a broker?   
a. What kind of investor would be better off with an investment adviser? 
12. RECOMMENDATION – “If somebody in your life, perhaps a friend, family member, or 
coworker, were considering working with a financial professional, how likely would you 
be to recommend that they read this form?”