Trending
Last week I told you a paper was coming. Today it is here.
The Fee Opacity Thesis white paper (my first ever!) went live this week, and it says one thing plainly: wealth management is not facing a single disruption; it is splitting into two separate businesses, and the fault line running through the middle is not artificial intelligence. It is opacity.
For fifty years, the advisory industry has priced itself in a way most clients could never fully see.
The fee comes out of the account instead of a bill. Portfolio management, planning, tax guidance, and behavioral coaching all get bundled under one percentage so nobody can tell what any single piece is actually worth, and the fee scales with the size of the account while the work does not change at all. An advisor running the same six-fund portfolio for a five-hundred-thousand-dollar client and a five-million-dollar client is doing the same job. One of those clients pays ten times more for it in some cases. That was never really about the work. That was about nobody being able to see the bill clearly enough to ask a hard question about it.
That is starting to change, and it has almost nothing to do with robots coming for anybody’s job.
Index funds have gotten radically cheaper. The number is not close. The asset-weighted expense ratio on index equity funds has fallen fifty-nine percent since 2009, down to fourteen basis points. The advisory fee sitting on top of that has barely moved off one percent in the same window. Meanwhile, something like a hundred and twenty-four trillion dollars is about to move from one generation to the next, and the people receiving that money were raised on modular pricing and expect to see what they are paying for before they hand anyone a dollar. Seventy to ninety percent of heirs change advisors after an inheritance lands, and that is not a coincidence. It is what happens when the old story stops making sense to the person hearing it for the first time.
I want to be careful here, because I know how this usually gets framed and I do not buy the easy version. You have heard someone tell you AI is coming for advice the way it came for translation or customer service, and that the smart move is to panic and automate everything before the wave hits. The paper looks hard at the actual data behind that story, the tech costs, the adoption curves, the job numbers, and it does not hold up the way the headlines want it to. What is actually happening is stranger than a robot takeover. Technology is not replacing the relationship...it is pricing them.
For the first time, a client can watch an AI tool model a Roth conversion or build a tax scenario in minutes for a few hundred dollars a year, then look at what they are paying their advisor to do something that increasingly resembles the same thing. The fee is not under threat because a machine took the job. It is under threat because the client can finally see the job.
This has happened before, and it took about twenty-five years the first time.
On May first, 1975, the SEC ended a hundred and eighty-three years of fixed commission rates on stock trades. Schwab opened its first retail branch that September and started marketing cheap trades to regular people, and the industry that had been living off invisible commissions split right down the middle. Discount brokers competed purely on low, visible cost. Full service firms had to actually prove the value of the advice they were charging for, because the transaction itself was no longer worth defending. The firms that struggled were the ones stuck in between, still charging full service prices while the thing they were actually delivering had quietly become a commodity. It took about twenty-five years for that whole shift to play out, start to finish. I do not think this one takes as long.
So here is where the paper lands, and it is the same fork Jon Robinson and I kept circling back to while we were writing it.
There are two honest lanes left. The first is a technology-forward practice. You lean into automation, you serve far more households at a lower margin per client, your pricing is explicit, your sales process is systematic. That is a good business and a fair one, and a lot of clients are going to be well served by it.
The second is the judgment practice. You solve the problems a machine cannot touch: multi-generational estate work, business value growth and succession, tax coordination across entities, walking a family through an actual crisis, and your fee is justified because the client can watch you create value a spreadsheet could never produce on its own. That is a good business too, and it commands a real premium because it has earned one.
What does not survive either lane is the middle. Charging judgment prices for automatable work, and hoping the relationship covers the gap long enough that nobody asks. Opacity has been quietly propping that model up for a long time, and opacity is exactly what is running out.
If you read anything I wrote last week, you already know where I land on why this matters beyond wealth management. Referability and pricing were never two separate problems. They have the same problem wearing two coats. You cannot get referred, predictably, for work nobody can describe, and you cannot defend a fee nobody can see. The advisor who cannot explain what they do for a client is the same advisor whose client cannot explain it to anyone else, and that silence is costing them every introduction that never happened.
The paper is live now, with the full data, the historical case, and a practical playbook for building toward either lane on purpose instead of drifting into the middle by accident. It is written for financial advisors and for the people who own advisory firms, but the question underneath it applies to anyone who charges for judgment. That is most of us.
Go read it. Then go ask your best client what they think they are paying for, and see if the answer survives the follow-up question.