Old Crone, surprising as it may seem, the ODP doesn't dislike affiliate links. One of the slogans that comes up in the editors' forum every now and then is "we don't care about the business model." (What we care about is the information flow model.)
What editors do despise and abhor is sites that consist of nothing but affiliate links, or appear to be created as a framework of affiliate links with a very thin, very transparent veneer of content conjoining infelicitous plagiarism and facile misunderstanding. We see a lot of them; and (I at least) simply leave a note like "affiliate spam". But it is not the presence of the affiliate tag that raises ire, but the conclusion that the whole site is nothing but a walking advertisement for one or more commercial off-site links (with or without affiliate tags, although "with" is by far the more common case.) What we especially abhor is sites that pretend to be doing business as "John Doe's Universal Emporium" but turn out to be nothing but "John Doe's Advertisement Page for ubiquitous-affiliate-emporium-program.com".
If a site has unique content that is valuable and unique to someone who never clicks on any of the affiliate links, then I'll list it happily. Example: someone published a little "Dictionary of Religion." Later on, they brought out a second edition and created a website that included a complete e-text of the first edition, and a link to buy a printed copy of the second edition. Did I even look at that "purchase" link to see whether it had an affiliate tag? Nay, not so, but far otherwise: I'd have published the site happily without that link, and I published it just as happily with it.
A "financial advice" site should be judged analogously. If (in the judgment of the editor, preferably the same editor that's looked at the last 200 "Financial Advice" sites) it has unique and useful tips (rather than the all-too-common general platitudes parodied in the Monty Python skit -- "How to cure all the world's diseases...") AND if the unique content is easily found at the site (rather than having to guess which ONE of the 50 banners ISN'T the affiliate link, like some of the porn doorways do) then the mere presence of an offsite link, even with a disguised affiliate tag, shouldn't prejudice the review.
[Note: I have carefully NOT looked at this site, IN ORDER THAT NONE of the details above could be understood as specifically relevant to it; in fact, I'm sure that some aren't specifically relevant.]
