This paper compares and contrasts mainstream agency theory with financial planning practice in Australia. It appears to be the first attempt to do so. It extends an influential mainstream contribution to the literature on agency theory and then uses this extension, in conjunction with other theoretical contributions, to shed light on actual contracts between investors, financial planners, licensees and product providers. The case for pure fee for service in actively managed funds and plans turns out to be weak, at least when the manager and the provider are treated as a consolidated entity, that being a reasonable first-order approximation in the Australian case. The amount of money exposed to risk by an active manager should be less than the entire investible wealth of the client, especially in the case of recently-retired investors. Asset-based fees on actively managed funds should be symmetric in gains and losses relative to a benchmark, contrary to current mainstream practice.