When Maria needed $400,000 for a down payment on a new home, her broker at a large Wall Street firm offered a solution: “Don’t sell investments and trigger capital gains. Just take out a margin loan.”
A margin loan is a line of credit from a brokerage firm, secured by the client’s investment portfolio. It offers quick access to cash with no immediate tax consequences and minimal paperwork. But the convenience comes at a cost. As of mid-2025, margin loan interest rates range from 6.25% to over 11%.
Margin loan recommendations are often presented by brokers as tax-savvy strategies that allow clients to access “tax-free” cash while keeping their portfolios intact. In many cases, however, the math benefits the advisor more than the investor. The cost of borrowing often exceeds what an investor is likely to earn by holding on.
For example, let’s assume an interest rate of 7.5% on Maria’s $400,000 margin loan. While borrowing delayed the payment of $20,000 in capital gains tax, she will eventually have to pay that tax anyway unless she holds the investments until her death. Two years later, with portfolio returns of 4% annually, she had earned around $32,000 from the $400,000 in investments she might have sold. Meanwhile, she had paid $60,000 in interest—leaving her some $28,000 worse off. That’s without factoring in ongoing interest payments, or the risks of a margin call if the investments securing the loan drop in value.
Why do advisors keep recommending margin loans? Because selling investments reduces the portfolio size and the advisor’s fee. Borrowing keeps the portfolio intact and the compensation unchanged—while the firm receives additional income from interest on the loan. In some cases, advisors suggest using margin loans to buy more investments, increasing both the portfolio and the fee they collect.
None of this is illegal. But when the borrowing cost is higher than expected returns and the advisor benefits financially, the ethics are questionable. The client takes the risk, while the advisor keeps the revenue.
This kind of conflict appears more often in portfolios where compensation is tied to asset volume and the company’s primary culture rewards gathering assets over delivering unbiased advice. By contrast, fee-only financial planning and investment advisors typically operate on simpler hourly, flat, or tiered fee structures. Their compensation doesn’t depend on whether a client borrows, sells, or holds. The culture of the firm focuses on conflict-free advice aligned with the client’s best interest.
Wall Street brokers are often held to a fiduciary standard, but structure still matters. In 2024 the SEC reported their examinations of brokers would continue to focus on advisor recommendations unduly influenced by the company’s compensation and incentives.
There are rare situations where a margin loan may be appropriate. A client with large unrealized gains might use a short-term margin loan to minimize taxes. An elderly investor might borrow tax-free rather than sell assets that will receive a step-up in basis at their death. Even in those cases, the math must be exact and the client must clearly understand the risks, including the possibility of a margin call.
If your advisor recommends a margin loan, especially to buy more investments, ask strong questions. What’s the interest rate? What return is realistic? What are the tax consequences of selling? How does this affect the advisor’s income?
If you don’t get direct answers, that’s a warning sign.
In a high-rate, low-return environment, margin loans rarely favor the client. The exceptions are narrow. The risks are significant. And the conflict of interest is measurable.
Sometimes the smartest move is the simplest: sell what you need, pay the tax, and leave leverage out of your plan.
