First Command Financial Services reviews about "benefit"

Not sure if benefits would be considered great; I have other coverage.

The only down side of working here is you have to work hard for the first several years as you build your own team and clientele. It's really easy with the tools provided buy FC.

There is little that I can say as a "con" at First Command. Most of the cons come with simply being a contract employee. As a contractor, there are no employee benefits - like health ins, vacation pay, personal assistants. I have to provide all these things for myself. There is no minimum income. There are situations where your pay might be $0 for the month or it could be 5 figures. Feast or famine - you take on the risk - not "The Man". Your income comes from your client's commitment to execute and continue to execute the plans you crafted and defined for them. Some clients don't want a connection with their advisor and others crave it. This is the best and worst all in one. This will make you or break you.

long hours, heavy lifting, confusing hierarchy

Working for independent contractors doesn't allow for benefits most companies offer, but AAs are primarily military spouses who don't need the medical benefits.

Highly regulated industry High InfoSec regulated Lots of changing systems to keep up with industry standards

I wouldn't really list anything as a con, but I think there are opportunities First Command has by just including to listen to employee voice through feedback and surveys.

First Command has an absolutely appalling lack of ease of use and doesn't embrace technology, both on the client side as well as on the advisor side. The workload on the average advisor has greatly increased the past 3 years (in part due to regulatory changes, but more so because the company hasn't adapted well to automatic more work functions). It's insane how many "workarounds" we have, known issues that aren't fixed, and poor data flow. On the compensation side, not enough is done to prevent people from selling high amount of insurance all at once and then having high chargeback ratios. There is no financial incentivization to do meetings with clients unless you see financial opportunities with that client. It would be nice to see some monetization for doing the "legwork" of regular meetings for clients with high needs but average/lower assets. They have a "senior recognition program" that requires you to have been an advisor for over a decade and provide financial incentivization to do more annual reviews but if you don't meet the experience requirement, you get no financial benefit from doing the reviews (again aside from opportunities). And I'm not saying you SHOULD only care about compensation, but the reality is that you incentivize what you want. If they want QUALITY, they need to find a way to incentivize that financially over quantity. But don't tell me that "we are focusing on quality soon" and then tell me that an advisor that has been doing it for 3yrs and is doing XXX reviews per year does not provide as much value to FC as someone doing it for 15 years. Sure one might be more skilled, but extra compensation should be based on closer to 3 yrs (and yes I have much more than 3 years so I'm not just whining)

Not many cons. Maybe the pay could be better.