
What Are You Really Getting For That 1% Advisory Fee?
A lot of people pay their financial advisory fee—0.75%, 1%, 1.25%—without stopping to ask, 'Am I getting value for this?' It's widely accepted as the industry standard. But if all you're receiving from that fee is basic investment management and an annual performance review, it's fair to ask if you are gaining or losing value.
I often see someone paying 1%, even on a $3 million or $4 million portfolio, who's been dropped into a cookie-cutter 60/40 allocation after answering a five-question risk tolerance form. That portfolio might be just a blend of ETFs or mutual funds, with no customization, proactive planning or communication.
I've seen portfolios from major firms where this is the entire setup. The advisor clicks a button to rebalance a generic model, and that's it. No tax strategy. No estate coordination. No protection planning. And the client ends up paying tens of thousands a year for something they could have done themselves with low-cost ETFs.
One way to evaluate an advisory fee is by how it's applied across different investment types. Not all assets require the same level of management, yet many firms charge a flat fee regardless of what's in the portfolio.
For example, I don't think advisors should charge fees on principal-protected investments, such as money market accounts, CDs or fixed annuities, where there's little active management involved. In contrast, market-exposed assets (stocks, ETFs, mutual funds and private investments) often do require more strategy and oversight, making fees more justifiable.
This kind of tiered structure can increase transparency and lower overall costs for investors, especially if a significant portion of the portfolio is in lower-risk or fee-exempt vehicles. In some cases, the effective fee may fall well below the traditional 1%.
Beyond investment management, it's worth examining whether your advisor provides additional services, such as tax planning, estate coordination or performance-based fee adjustments. If your advisor suspends billing during periods of negative performance or covers the cost of estate planning services, for instance, these are important factors to consider when assessing overall value.
The first question to ask is: 'What am I paying my advisor?' It's surprising how many people don't know. That's a red flag. And once you know what you're paying, the next question is: 'What am I getting in return?'
Are you getting better returns than a passive ETF? Are you getting tax-efficient withdrawal strategies? Are they coordinating with your CPA or helping with estate planning? Or are you just getting handed a model portfolio and told to stay the course, no matter what?
If you're not getting more than what you are willing and able to do on your own, it may be time to ask what else your advisor is really doing for you.
Value looks different for everyone. Some people want tax support. Others want regular communication or help handling market stress. Ask yourself: 'What stresses me out the most financially? And is my advisor helping me with that?'
Peace of mind for you may be having your advisor walk you through which account to draw from each month in retirement or what happens to your house and other assets after your death. If your advisor isn't taking the most important weight off your shoulders, it's worth reevaluating your relationship.
Sometimes full-service advice doesn't make sense, especially for younger investors still building wealth. If you're 30 or 40, earning well and just need a few clear guidelines—max out your 401(k), diversify your portfolio, rebalance yearly—you probably don't need to pay a 1% fee.
That said, if you've got a complex tax situation or want help planning a big life decision, there's still room for advice. It just doesn't always have to cost 1% of your assets under management.
The best time to reevaluate your advisory relationship is when your life changes. Whether you're approaching retirement, receiving an inheritance, facing a health issue or selling a business, ask: 'Is my advisor equipped for this phase?'
My firm specializes in retirement planning, so our services are a great fit for someone in their 60s but probably not for someone in their 20s. We work with clients who share a common set of concerns, such as how to draw down their savings in a tax-efficient way and how to ensure their estate plans are in order. These needs tend to become more pressing as people approach retirement, and they often require a different kind of guidance than what's needed during the accumulation years.
If you've been working with someone for a while, take the time to look back. How has your portfolio done (after subtracting advisory fees) over the past five, 10, 20 years? Has your advisor made changes during periods of volatility, or did they just stick with the same playbook?
The market environment in 2022 is a useful example. As interest rates rose sharply, many investors with traditional 60/40 portfolios saw unexpected losses on the bond side, which is often assumed to provide stability. Some were surprised by how much they lost, raising questions about how well their risk exposure had been explained or managed. In hindsight, it wasn't just a matter of market performance; it highlighted the importance of communication and planning during periods of rapid change.
At the end of the day, you have to add it all up. Maybe your advisor isn't beating the market every year, but are they helping you make smart withdrawals? Are they reducing your stress? Are they saving you time and energy you'd rather spend elsewhere?
If you can say, 'I'd feel worse off doing this on my own,' then your advisor is probably worth the fee. But if not, if the value just isn't adding up, it might be time to ask for more or move on.
The information provided here is not investment, tax or financial advice. You should consult with a licensed professional for advice concerning your specific situation.
Forbes Finance Council is an invitation-only organization for executives in successful accounting, financial planning and wealth management firms. Do I qualify?
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA)'s CEO Has A Great Relationship With Trump, Says Jim Cramer
We recently published . NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQ:NVDA) is one of the stocks Jim Cramer recently discussed. After bleeding close to $600 billion in market value in January amidst the DeepSeek selloff, Wall Street's AI chip darling, NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQ:NVDA) is once again the most valuable company in the world. The firm has benefited from growing investor bullishness about the long-term prospects of AI. NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQ:NVDA)'s shares closed the week 1% higher after big tech's continued persistence to spend billions of dollars to buy AI chips. Cramer discussed the impact and the CEO's relationship with President Trump: 'All CapEx go up, it's all NVIDIA. . .it's really good for NVIDIA. But of course, NVIDIA, the President talking about breaking them up, we'll get to that later. It was an out of body comment. Previously, the CNBC TV host commented on NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQ:NVDA)'s shares and parabolic moves: 'What is the solution to this? Look, in my forthcoming book, How to Make Money in Any Market, I have banished my antiparabola bias. I have a method I reveal of picking five stocks to go alongside an index fund with some money added each month. I state point blank that if you are in your 30s or older, you should own one speculative situation like an Oklo, okay, or a Joby. Just one. It could fail you after going parabolic. Moreover, if you're under 30, you can pick two speculative names out of five because you've got enough time to make back any potential losses. Photo by Javier Esteban on Unsplash Now, you may think I'm reckless for endorsing any of these even with caveats, but it's time to admit that for many years now, speculative stocks with great growth, they've worked. Oh, and let's not forget, they don't have to stay speculative. NVIDIA stock has had many parabolic moves, including the one that started in April. To keep yourself out of these runs because of a principle that stopped working ages ago, that's to be blind to change, and I don't like it. I don't want to be that way.' While we acknowledge the potential of NVDA as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: 30 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 11 Hidden AI Stocks to Buy Right Now. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class
There are many questions that don't have simple answers, either because they're too complex or they're hypothetical. One such question is what it might mean for billionaires to pay taxes at the same rate as the upper middle class, whose income starts, on average, at around $168,000, depending on where you live. Find Out: Read Next: ChatGPT may not be an oracle, but it can analyze information and offer trends and patterns, so I asked it what would happen if billionaires were required to pay anywhere near as much as the upper middle class. Here's what it said. A Fatter Government Larder For starters, ChatGPT said that if billionaires paid taxes like the upper middle class, the government would bring in a lot more money — potentially hundreds of billions of dollars more every year. 'That's because most billionaires don't make their money from salaries like upper-middle-class workers do. Instead, they grow their wealth through investments–stocks, real estate, and businesses–which are often taxed at much lower rates or not taxed at all until the assets are sold,' ChatGPT told me. Billionaire income is largely derived from capital appreciation, not wages. In other words, they make money on their money through interest. And as of yet, the U.S. tax code doesn't tax 'unrealized capital gains' so until you sell your assets, you could amass millions in appreciation and not pay a dime on it, ChatGPT shared. Learn More: What Do Billionaires Pay in Taxes? Right now, many billionaires pay an effective tax rate of around 8% or less, thanks to loopholes and tax strategies. Meanwhile, upper-middle-class households earning, say, $250,000 might pay around 20% to 24% of their income in taxes. (Keep in mind that the government doesn't apply one tax bracket to all income. You pay tax in layers, according to the IRS. As your income goes up, the tax rate on the next layer of income is higher. So you pay 12% on the first $47,150, then 22% on $47,151 to $100,525 and so on). So, if billionaires were taxed at the same rate as those upper-middle-class wage earners, 'it would level the playing field–and raise a ton of revenue that could be used for things like infrastructure, education or healthcare,' ChatGPT said. The Impact on Wealth Equality I wondered if taxing billionaires could have any kind of impact on wealth equality, as well. While it wouldn't put more money in other people's pockets, 'it could increase trust in the tax system, showing that the wealthiest aren't playing by a different set of rules,' ChatGPT said. It would also help curb 'the accumulation of dynastic wealth,' where the richest families essentially hoard wealth for generations without contributing proportionally to the system. But it's not a magic bullet. 'Wealth inequality is rooted in more than just taxes–wages, education access, housing costs, and corporate ownership all play a role,' ChatGPT said. Billionaires paying taxes doesn't stop them from being billionaires, either, it pointed out. Taxing Billionaires Is Not That Simple While in theory billionaires paying higher taxes 'would shift a much bigger share of the tax burden onto the very wealthy,' ChatGPT wrote, billionaires are not as liquid as they may seem. 'A lot of billionaire wealth is tied up in things like stocks they don't sell, so taxing that would require big changes to how the tax code works.' Also, billionaires are good at finding loopholes and account strategies — it might be hard to enforce. What's a Good Middle Ground? We don't live in a black and white world, however. There's got to be a middle ground, so I asked ChatGPT if there is a way to tax billionaires more, even if it's not quite how the upper middle class are taxed. A likely compromise would come from a policy decision, which isn't likely to be forthcoming anytime soon. President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill only offered more tax breaks to the wealthiest. However, policy proposals that have been floated, include: A minimum tax on billionaires where they might pay around 20% of their overall income Limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes that allow them to significantly reduce taxable income Tax unrealized gains (those assets that have only earned but not yet been sold), gradually. ChatGPT agreed that billionaires could pay more than they currently do, even if they don't pay exactly what upper-middle-class workers pay in percentage terms. 'The key is to design policies that are fair, enforceable, and politically feasible.' I asked how realistic such policy proposals are, and ChatGPT told me what I already knew: They're 'moderately realistic' but only with the 'right political alignment.' More From GOBankingRates 9 Downsizing Tips for the Middle Class To Save on Monthly Expenses This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Not Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMT) But RTX, Say A Lot Of People According To Jim Cramer
We recently published . Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE:LMT) is one of the stocks Jim Cramer recently discussed. Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE:LMT) is a key American defense contractor when it comes to the aerospace industry. Its fighter aircraft form the backbone of US air superiority. The shares have lost 11.9% year-to-date on the back of a major 10.8% dip in July after its Q2 profit dipped by a whopping 80% on the back of a classified $1.6 billion loss on a classified aeronautics project. Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE:LMT)'s Q2 revenue of $18.16 billion also missed analyst estimates of $18.57 billion. No wonder Cramer made the following remarks about the firm: 'RTX, by the way, pushed by a number of people, saying that's the defense stock you want to be in, not Lockheed Martin.' Source: Pexels Previously, Cramer had advised viewers to stay long on Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE:LMT): 'I like Lockheed Martin too much to tell you to do that. Every time I see Jim Taiclet, I say to myself, why does anyone want to sell that stock with a 3% yield and a great book of business and a terrific CEO? No, you stay long, Lockheed Martin.' While we acknowledge the potential of LMT as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: 30 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 11 Hidden AI Stocks to Buy Right Now. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data