3 Types of Investors Who Should Avoid Flat Fee Financial Advisors

The rising popularity of flat-fee financial advisors is driven by their promise of transparency and a simple, predictable fee structure. This model, where clients pay a fixed fee regardless of their portfolio size, is an appealing choice for many. However, despite the advantages and rapidly increasing popularity of flat fee financial advisors, they are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Certain types of investors might find that this model doesn’t align well with their financial goals, the complexity of their financial needs, or their investment strategies.

Whether it’s due to the size of their portfolio, their need (or lack thereof) for ongoing financial guidance, or a preference for a performance-based compensation model, three types of investors could be better served by exploring alternatives to a flat fee financial advisor.

1) Investors with Small Portfolios

For individuals just beginning their investment journey or those with smaller asset bases, the attraction of engaging with a flat fee financial advisor might initially seem appealing due to the straightforwardness of the fee structure. However, upon closer examination, these investors might discover that flat fees can be disproportionately high in relation to the services received, especially when compared to the size of their portfolios.

The primary challenge for investors with small portfolios is that a flat fee, which is fixed regardless of the portfolio size, can represent a significant percentage of their assets. This is in stark contrast to an Assets Under Management (AUM) model, where fees are a percentage of the assets and thus scale with the size of the portfolio.

The impact of a flat fee on a small portfolio can be significant, potentially eroding the growth potential of the investor’s assets. For example, a flat fee of $10,000 per year might only represent 1% of a $1,000,000 portfolio but would constitute 10% of a $100,000 portfolio. This higher percentage can dramatically reduce the net returns of a small portfolio, especially when considering the compounded effect of fees over time.

For investors with small portfolios, there are more suitable fee structures and services that could better align with their financial capabilities and goals. In this case, you may find that a financial advisor who charges a percentage of AUM rather than a flat fee could be more advantageous.

This model allows the fee to scale with the size of the portfolio, ensuring that investors pay more proportionately to their asset size. This can be particularly appealing for those just starting their investment journey, as it provides access to professional advice without the burden of a disproportionately high fee.

Even better may be a hybrid fee is where a financial advisor is willing to offer adaptive pricing. For example, at our firm, we charge the lesser of 1% or the annual flat fee. This keeps the fee low for those who may not have enough in assets to qualify for the flat fee. As the account grows, eventually the flat fee would apply.

2) Investors Without the Need for Ongoing Guidance

Another group that might reconsider the flat fee financial advisor model includes investors who do not require or desire continuous financial planning or investment advice. This category of investors might find that paying a recurring flat fee (or any fee) does not match their sporadic need for professional financial guidance.

The ongoing fee model of both flat fee and % of assets advisors is designed around the idea of providing ongoing, comprehensive financial advice, including regular portfolio reviews, rebalancing, tax optimization, and other services. However, not all investors need such constant oversight. Some may only require a one-time financial plan to set their investment strategy on the right path, while others might seek periodic check-ins rather than continuous engagement. For these individuals, hiring any financial advisor for ongoing services can represent an inefficient allocation of their financial resources, as they end up paying for services they do not use or need.

For investors with intermittent advisory needs, an hourly financial advisor may offer more suitable alternatives. This model allows investors to pay only for the advice or services they require when they require them. For instance, an investor could engage an hourly financial advisor to develop a comprehensive financial plan or seek advice on specific investment decisions or financial questions. This approach ensures that investors are not overpaying for unutilized services, aligning costs more directly with their actual needs.

3) Investors Who Prefer Performance-Based Fee Structures

A distinct group of investors who might find the flat fee financial advisor model less appealing are those who favor a performance-based fee structure, typically associated with a % of assets under management advisor. This model often comes with the promise that “When we do better, you do better,” suggesting a financial alignment between the advisor and the client.

However, entrusting your financial future to the notion that an advisor is more motivated by this fee structure warrants scrutiny. Extensive research indicates that actively managed portfolios rarely sustain outperformance over benchmarks like the S&P 500, challenging the premise that higher fees for active management consistently lead to better returns.

Furthermore, the emphasis on performance-based incentives overlooks a crucial principle in financial advisory services: the fiduciary duty. Regardless of the compensation model—be it a flat fee or a percentage of assets—a fiduciary advisor is legally and ethically obligated to act in the best interests of their clients. This fiduciary commitment ensures that both flat fee advisors and asset-based advisors are bound to prioritize their client’s financial well-being above their own financial gain.

Despite the compelling evidence and fiduciary standards, some advisors and their clients hold onto the belief in achieving superior market returns, justifying higher fees for perceived better performance. It’s essential to recognize that the real value of a financial advisor extends beyond investment selection to include comprehensive financial planning, strategic advice, and navigating life’s financial challenges—all under the umbrella of fiduciary care.

The Transparent Choice Is Usually Best

Understanding the nuances of different fee structures is crucial for investors. As we’ve explored, while flat fee financial advisors offer a straightforward and predictable model, it may not be the optimal choice for everyone. Specifically, investors with small portfolios, those who don’t require ongoing guidance, and those who prefer a performance-based compensation model should consider their options before committing to a flat fee advisor.

Choosing the right financial advisor is a significant decision that can impact your financial well-being for years to come. By carefully considering your needs and preferences against the backdrop of available fee structures, you’re more likely to find a partnership that will support and enhance your financial journey. Remember, the goal is to find an advisor who not only meets your current needs but can also grow and adapt with you as your financial situation evolves.

Before you leave, be sure to check out our FAQs to see if you may be a match for our approach.