By Steve Garmhausen
A few years ago, having a million dollars to invest practically guaranteed you a seat in a financial advisor's conference room. Today, you might be told, "Sorry, you're too small."
Wealth management firms are increasingly pivoting to focus on the wealthiest Americans -- those with well more than $1 million and preferably more than $10 million. That shift, combined with a growing shortfall of advisors throughout the industry, means "mass affluent" Americans -- generally considered to be those with $100,000 to $1 million to invest -- are having more trouble hiring full-service advisors.
"I do see a supply-and-demand disruption for the mass-affluent segment, which could limit access to advice for some individuals," says Vlad Golyk, who leads McKinsey's wealth management practice in North America.
But experts say a combination of good financial planning and investment guidance continues to be widely available, provided you understand how the market is changing, are willing to shop a little more strategically, and are willing to pay fees that may diverge from the traditional full-service model in which clients pay an annual fee of 1% of assets under management.
The Wealth Gap
A major reason for the shifting market is the continuing concentration of wealth at the highest level. From 2010 to 2022, according to Datos Insights, U.S. wealth for ultrahigh--net--worth households rose by 183%, compared with just 54% for mass-affluent households. That trend likely continues. The mass--affluent segment has been "very flat in terms of their accumulation of investible wealth," says Chayce Horton, associate director for wealth management at research firm Cerulli, even as "we've seen a rapid acceleration in the growth of wealth held by investors with more than $5 million or $10 million."
Wealth management firms have taken note. Using pay incentives, big national brokerage firms are encouraging their advisors to hunt for wealthier clients. Many independent firms are fashioning themselves as "multifamily offices" and "personal chief financial officers," offering wealthy households everything from bespoke private investments to sophisticated tax strategies.
"Firm strategies are increasingly focused on investing time and resources toward upmarket priorities," says Horton. "We've seen certain large broker-dealers that have been incentivizing their advisors to not take on lower-asset clients," he says. "And we've seen large [registered investment advisors] or broker-dealers that aren't focusing on building out more services for households with less than $500,000; they're focused on acquiring a trust company or building out an estate-planning team to better support their advisors who are serving clients with more than $5 million or $10 million."
Wealth managers argue that economics are part of the reason for the focus on the rich. Clients with $5 million or $10 million are looking for services beyond basic planning and investing, such as tax preparation and planning, estate planning, private investments, and insurance, each of which requires specialists. To serve a household with $250,000 or $1 million with that kind of full--stack offering usually isn't profitable.
Indeed, advisory firms' quest for higher profit margins is helping to drive the industry's upmarket pivot, and it coincides with the proliferation of private-equity owners in these businesses. "I have people telling us all the time, 'Your average client should be paying you $20,000 to $30,000 a year," says Gabriel Shahin, the founder and principal of Falcon Wealth, based in Ontario, Calif. "Unfortunately, the mass affluent is the one suffering."
Even as the industry directs its resources toward wealthier clients, a supply/demand problem is brewing. McKinsey has estimated that the U.S. wealth management industry could face a shortage of 90,000 to 110,000 financial advisors by 2034 if advisor productivity stays at current levels.
Technology, including artificial intelligence, could help remaining advisors serve more clients, and could in some cases provide an alternative to human advisors, says McKinsey's Golyk. He anticipates that as soon as this year or next, there will be AI-first offerings that provide basic planning, with the option to pay more to get a human advisor involved. "I think with the right regulatory framework and guardrails, it can deliver as much as an average advisor who serves a household with fairly uncomplicated financial needs," says Golyk. "I do see a world where new business models will be able to cater to a large chunk of the population."
Different Tiers
At present, there are still other options for mass-affluent households in need of planning and investment help. In many cases, wealth management firms are implementing service tiers to accommodate a spectrum of client types.
UBS, for instance, prides itself on serving billionaires. But the growth of "merely rich" households prompted it to create a Wealth Advice Center, in which more-junior advisors are tasked with delivering high--quality advice to the mass affluent as well as the tier between them and ultrahigh-net-worth clients. "We decided over a year ago that we needed to do a better job of serving the mass affluent and the high net worth," says Bill Carroll, head of high-net-worth strategy for UBS Global Wealth Management U.S.
Wealth management call centers caught on in the late 1990s as an economical way for big brokerage firms to serve clients of more modest means. But unlike the older versions, in which you might speak with a different advisor each time you called, UBS' Wealth Advice Center assigns an individual financial advisor to each relationship.
Denver-based Mercer Advisors is an example of an independent wealth management business with multiple client tiers. On one end of the spectrum is Regis Group, a private family office-type structure for the firm's wealthiest clients; at the other end is Wealth Path, its offering for less-wealthy clients, including the mass affluent. Mercer President Daniel Gourvitch argues that firms need not abandon mass--affluent clients to chase the ultrawealthy. "Many of the families in this mass--affluent segment don't have access to fiduciary advice in their local communities," he says. "We want to change that."
Mercer's Wealth Path offering includes a dedicated advisor relationship, comprehensive financial planning, an "institutional grade" portfolio, and basic estate planning and document drafting.
One way for firms to serve mass-affluent households and make a good profit is simple: charge them more than the traditional 1% annual fee. Falcon Wealth, whose typical client has $500,000 to $5 million to invest, made that shift in 2018, moving to a 2% fee for the first $350,000. They saw their clients accept it in exchange for robust planning and service, says Shahin. Fees from 1.5% to 2% for a strong offering is "where the industry is going to go," he predicts: "It's very fair [for mass-affluent clients], especially if no one is going to serve them otherwise."
To be sure, the mass affluent have lower-cost options. Many full-service advisors still charge traditional rates, although they can't always provide the robust package of services offered by higher-end firms. Shop around and you may find a good one.
Commercial banks are also pushing to funnel customers to their wealth offerings and often have lower minimums. "Every time I go into Chase Bank, they're like, 'Hey, would you like to sit down with one of our financial advisors?'" says Dave Alison, president of wealth management at Westlake, Ohio--based Prosperity Capital Advisors. "They don't have a $1 million, $2 million minimum," he says, "and they're probably more than happy to scoop up $200,000, $300,000, or $400,000 accounts all day long."
Investors can also turn to robo-advisors, which can bundle human advice with automated investment management for a fee. Large online brokerage firms often combine digital platforms with phone--based or branch--based advisors. "Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard -- they have huge amounts of resources available for those clients that maybe aren't at that million-dollar level," says Alison.
But the human touch will remain important. As much as tech-loving consumers appreciate the convenience of getting what they want by punching a few keys, humans can look you in the eye and understand complex relationships, says Carroll. "You can't say to an AI bot, 'Help me with the fact that I don't trust my son,' " he says.
Fee Options
Another option to consider: hourly financial planners, who can provide expert fiduciary advice without asset minimums or product sales pressure. Clients can hire hourly planners for specific questions -- retirement readiness, stock--option decisions, Roth IRA conversions -- paying only for time used. "The beauty of an hourly based advisor is they shouldn't care if you have $1,000 or $10 million; they're going to help you," says Shahin.
Meanwhile, big workplace--retirement providers such as Fidelity, Vanguard, and TIAA are pushing to maintain and deepen relationships with participants postretirement. TIAA's wealth management head, David Nason, told Barron's in October that the firm is expanding its wealth management advisor corps to turn plan participants -- who number in the millions -- into continuing wealth management clients. He stressed that AI tools would free advisors from administrative work, enabling them to spend more time advising clients.
From traditional wealth managers to online brokerage firms to hourly planners, mass-affluent investors still have plenty of options. The key to finding the right one is to match the complexity of your needs to what you will be paying for. If you seek general financial advice and investment management, you should be able to find a continuing advisor relationship in the 1% fee ballpark. Expect to pay more if a firm's service model includes things like tax preparation, tax planning, estate planning, sophisticated investments, and insurance.
(MORE TO FOLLOW) Dow Jones Newswires
March 20, 2026 09:30 ET (13:30 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
