(Image credit: Getty Images)
For decades, the most common way financial advisers charged for their services was a percentage of assets under management, often around 1% annually.
That structure became the industry default, and for many seeking financial advice, it still is.
Article continues below
Sign up for Kiplinger’s Free Newsletters
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice on investing, taxes, retirement, personal finance and more – straight to your e-mail.
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice – straight to your e-mail.
Many households ask whether paying a 1% AUM (assets under management) fee is “too much.” The better question is whether the fee increases automatically with market growth or reflects delivered value.
A 1% AUM fee is not inherently right or wrong. The key issue is whether compensation rises automatically with portfolio growth or reflects the scope and value of the financial planning delivered.
The core question is not whether financial advice has value. It does. The question is whether the way advice is priced reflects that value clearly and fairly.
Automatic escalation vs justified escalation
Under a traditional percentage-based model, fees rise automatically as assets grow. If markets appreciate and a household’s invested assets double in value, the fee doubles, as well.
A simple illustration makes this clear. A $1 million account billed at 1% costs $10,000 annually. If that account grows to $2 million, the fee rises to $20,000. That increase happens even if the service model has not materially changed and the value being delivered remains consistent.
This is what many households react to — not the existence of fees; not the role of investment management — but automatic escalation tied solely to compound market growth.
By contrast, a flat-fee structure prices advice as a transparent dollar amount based on scope, complexity and value delivered. Fees might increase over time. Life becomes more complex. Retirement transitions require deeper planning. Tax coordination expands. Business succession planning might enter the picture.
But those adjustments are tied to justified changes in work and responsibility, not market appreciation alone.
That architectural distinction matters.
What clients actually want
Modern financial planning is not about stock selection or trying to outperform an index.
People seeking comprehensive advice want tax strategy. They want retirement income planning that addresses withdrawal sequencing and longevity risk. They want help coordinating with attorneys and accountants.
They want guidance on equity compensation and business ownership decisions. They want integrated investment management that considers account location, distribution strategy, lifetime tax implications and the transfer of responsibility over time.
They also want behavioral support during market volatility and career transitions.
When compensation remains anchored to compound portfolio growth alone, it can reinforce the perception that investment performance is the sole value driver. That framing can obscure the broader planning relationship clients increasingly expect.
Research supports the importance of that broader relationship. Studies from the CFP Board and the FINRA Investor Education Foundation show that individuals who work with financial professionals report higher financial confidence and greater retirement preparedness than those who do not.
Data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances also indicates that households working with advisers are more likely to maintain diversified portfolios and long-term retirement strategies.
Behavioral finance research further suggests that advisory value often comes from tax efficiency, disciplined rebalancing, structured withdrawal strategies and emotional coaching during periods of uncertainty, rather than from stock picking alone.
In other words, the value of advice extends beyond returns.
The fee structure should reflect that reality.
The confusion problem
I often meet people who say:
- “I’m confused about adviser fees. Tell me how your flat fee works.”
- “How is your flat fee different from a 1% fee?”
- “Do you charge separately for investment management?”
- “I paid my previous adviser more every year, but I’m not sure what changed.”
Those questions point to a clarity gap.
Over time, the industry has introduced multiple pricing structures. Some were designed to improve access for younger households. Others were built to separate planning from implementation. Still others emerged as responses to concerns about misalignment between cost and value.
That evolution reflects a healthy effort to solve real problems. But it has also created a landscape where people struggle to compare services because the definitions vary as much as the fees.
Many households don’t resent paying for advice. They resent not understanding why their bill keeps rising and how compounding fees affect what they ultimately keep over time.
As a flat-fee financial adviser, I’ve found that when pricing, scope and responsibility are unified under one clearly defined relationship, clients more easily understand what they are receiving and how that relationship evolves.
Percentage-based fees are not inherently unethical. Flat fees aren’t inherently superior. The real issue is whether clients understand what they are paying for, how that fee changes over time and what value it represents.
When compensation is tied automatically to market growth, it can blur that connection. When pricing is clearly tied to complexity and delivered value, it’s often easier for households to evaluate whether the relationship remains worthwhile.
That evaluation is essential. As financial technology platforms and AI-driven tools expand, people have more options than ever. McKinsey has projected that the wealth management industry could face a significant adviser shortfall in the next decade.
At the same time, digital platforms continue to make investment implementation easier.
If the profession does not offer clarity, others will offer simplicity.
Choosing a model that fits
There is no single fee model that’s universally right.
Percentage-based AUM models might suit households who prefer fees that scale automatically with market growth, whether the service includes delegated investment oversight alone or comprehensive planning.
Comprehensive flat-fee planning arrangements can also include full delegated investment management, but price that responsibility based on planning scope and complexity rather than as a percentage of assets.
Advice-only or hourly arrangements can work well for experienced households who want targeted guidance but prefer to manage implementation themselves.
Subscription or membership structures might appeal to younger professionals who want ongoing access and structured guidance without large upfront commitments.
Flat-fee, all-inclusive planning might resonate most with households who want comprehensive coordination and predictable pricing that reflects planning complexity rather than market growth.
For households evaluating financial advisers, the practical questions are straightforward. Ask:
- How the fee is calculated and when it increases
- What specific services are included and whether investment management is bundled or separate
- About adviser availability, meeting frequency and what level of communication you should expect
- How retirement income planning, tax coordination and estate collaboration are handled
- How expected outcomes align with your financial goals and how and why the fee would change over time
Clarity around those questions often reveals more about fit than the percentage itself.
The more important question is not which model wins an industry debate. It’s whether the model aligns with the services being delivered and whether the client clearly understands how and why the fee changes.
Automatic escalation tied to compound market growth is structurally different from justified escalation tied to increased planning scope and value.
People deserve to understand that distinction.
When fees rise because complexity and responsibility rise, that’s a reflection of expanded value. When fees rise simply because markets have appreciated, the relationship can feel less intuitive.
As financial planning continues to evolve from product distribution toward comprehensive advice, transparency will matter more, not less.
The goal is not to eliminate fees. It is to ensure that the way those fees grow matches the value being delivered.
Clarity, not volume of debate, is what builds trust.
