3 Types of Investors Who Should Avoid Flat Fee Financial Advisors

Flat-fee financial advisors are gaining attention for good reason. Their promise of transparent and predictable pricing, without the conflicts often tied to traditional asset-based models, appeals to many investors. By paying a fixed fee regardless of portfolio size, clients enjoy simplicity and clarity when it comes to advisory costs.

However, as attractive as the flat-fee model may be, it isn't the right solution for everyone. Certain investors may find that this approach does not fully align with their financial goals, the complexity of their situation, or their investment preferences. 

There are at least three types of investors who might be better served by an alternative fee structure. 

1) Small Portfolios: Why a Flat Fee Can Eat Away at Growth

For individuals just beginning their investment journey or those with smaller asset bases, the appeal of a flat fee financial advisor often comes from the simplicity of the fee structure. However, on closer examination, many investors with small portfolios discover that flat fees can be disproportionately high compared to the size of their accounts.

A flat fee remains fixed regardless of portfolio size. As a result, it can represent a much larger percentage of assets for smaller investors. In contrast, a percentage-based Assets Under Management (AUM) model naturally adjusts to the size of the portfolio.

The impact on growth potential can be significant. For example, a $10,000 annual flat fee may only represent 1% of a $1,000,000 portfolio, but it would consume 10% of a $100,000 portfolio. Over time, the compounded effect of those fees can dramatically erode net returns and slow wealth accumulation.

For investors with smaller portfolios, a traditional AUM fee structure often makes more financial sense. Because the fee scales with the size of the portfolio, investors pay an amount that remains proportional to their assets, helping preserve more capital for growth.

An even better solution may be an adaptive or hybrid fee arrangement. At our firm, for example, we charge the lesser of 1% of assets or our annual flat fee. This keeps costs low during the early stages of wealth building and automatically transitions to a flat fee model as the portfolio grows.

2) Occasional Advice Seekers: Better Alternatives to Ongoing Fees

Some investors may not need the continuous support that a flat fee financial advisor typically provides. For individuals who only seek occasional advice rather than regular oversight, paying a recurring flat fee may not be the most efficient use of financial resources.

Flat fee and percentage-based advisors generally structure their services around ongoing financial planning, investment management, tax optimization, and periodic portfolio reviews. While this level of support is valuable for many, not everyone requires it. Some investors may only need a one-time financial plan to establish their strategy, while others prefer periodic check-ins rather than a long-term advisory relationship.

For these individuals, ongoing fees can result in paying for services they do not use or need. Instead, working with an hourly financial advisor can be a more appropriate and cost-effective option. Hourly advisors allow investors to pay only for the specific advice they need, when they need it. Whether it is building an initial financial plan or seeking guidance on a particular decision, this flexible approach better aligns the cost of advice with the investor’s actual needs.

3) Performance-Based Investors: Why Flat Fees Might Feel Misaligned

Some investors may feel more comfortable with a performance-based fee structure, typically associated with advisors who charge a percentage of assets under management. This model often promotes the idea that "when we do better, you do better," suggesting a closer financial alignment between advisor and client.

While this promise sounds appealing, it deserves a closer look. Research consistently shows that actively managed portfolios rarely outperform benchmarks like the S&P 500 over long periods. This challenges the assumption that paying higher fees for active management reliably leads to better investment outcomes.

Furthermore, focusing solely on performance-based incentives can overlook a more important principle: the advisor's fiduciary duty. Whether an advisor charges a flat fee or a percentage of assets, fiduciary advisors are legally and ethically required to act in the client’s best interests. This responsibility helps ensure that the advisor’s recommendations are driven by what is best for the client, not by the potential for higher compensation.

Despite this, some advisors and investors still hold to the belief that superior returns justify higher fees. It is important to remember that the true value of a financial advisor often extends beyond investment performance. Guidance in financial planning, risk management, tax strategies, and life transitions can be far more impactful than chasing market returns—especially when delivered with a clear fiduciary commitment.

The Transparent Choice Is Usually Best

Choosing the right financial advisor is a decision that can shape your financial future for years to come. Understanding how different fee structures work is an important first step. While flat fee financial advisors offer a straightforward and predictable model, this approach is not the best fit for everyone. Investors with smaller portfolios, those who do not need ongoing guidance, or those who prefer performance-based compensation may find better alignment elsewhere.

The key is to match your needs, goals, and preferences with a fee model that makes sense for you. A strong advisor relationship should offer clarity, adaptability, and real value—not just today, but as your financial life evolves.

If you would like to learn more about how we work with clients, visit our How We Help page.