Below is a concise synthesis of the data you provided, followed by a few take‑aways that can help you evaluate and compare these firms for a $10 million‑plus portfolio.
1. Quick‑look fee matrix (effective annual rate for a $10 M‑$25 M bucket)
| Firm | Typical AUM‑based fee range* | Lowest published tier (large‑scale) | Notable extra charges |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goldman Sachs PWM | 1.70 % → 1.60 % (declines further for > $50 M) | ≤ 1.50 % (negotiated) | Custodian/transaction fees |
| UBS WM | 0.75 %‑1.50 % (max 2.50 % across all programs) | ≈ 0.50 %‑1.00 % for very large accounts | Annual account‑maintenance $75‑$150; fund‑position fees |
| Morgan Stanley WM | 0.75 %‑1.50 % (wrap up to 2.50 %) | ≈ 0.50 %‑1.00 % for $10 M+ | Wire/transfer fees $100‑$500 |
| Fisher Investments | 1.00 %‑1.05 % (flat after $5 M) | ~1.00 % (no lower tier) | Brokerage/custody fees |
| Fidelity Private WM | 0.20 %‑1.50 % (service‑dependent) | ≈ 0.50 %‑0.80 % negotiated | Minimal transaction fees |
| Vanguard PAS (Flagship Select) | 0.30 %‑0.40 % (drops to 0.05 % > $25 M) | 0.10 % on $10 M‑$25 M | Fund expense ratios only |
| J.P. Morgan Private Bank | 0.60 %‑1.20 % (max 1.45 %) | ≈ 0.50 %+ for very large balances | Portfolio‑specific investment fees |
| Empower (Personal Capital) | 0.49 % on > $10 M (tiered down from 0.59 % on $5‑$10 M) | 0.49 % | None reported |
| Edward Jones | Starts 1.40 % (declines) | ~0.80 %‑1.00 % for $10 M+ | Platform fee 0.05 % → 0 % above $10 M |
| Pathstone | 0.50 %‑1.00 % (negotiated) | ~0.50 % (typical for ultra‑large) | Integrated tax/estate services |
*These are the “headline” advisory percentages most commonly cited for the $10 M‑$25 M range. Many firms negotiate lower rates for $30 M+, $50 M+, or when bundling ancillary services (tax, estate, philanthropy, etc.).
2. What drives the spread?
| Driver | How it shows up |
|---|---|
| Scale discounts (“breakpoints”) | Most firms drop 0.1‑0.3 % per breakpoint; Vanguard’s model goes as low as 0.05 % for $25 M+. |
| Service depth | Private banks (Goldman, UBS, J.P. Morgan) bundle banking, credit, and concierge services, justifying higher caps (≈ 1.5‑2 %). |
| Product mix | Firms that allocate heavily to proprietary or alternative products often tack on performance fees (e.g., 20 % of excess returns). |
| Distribution channel | Digital‑first outfits (Empower, Vanguard, Fidelity) keep fees low because they rely on technology rather than dedicated relationship teams. |
| Geography & regulation | European/Asian private banks tend to quote in euros/pounds, but the effective % is comparable (0.7‑1.2 %). Local tax‑planning expertise can affect overall cost. |
3. How to compare “effective cost”
- Calculate the weighted average fee for the portion of assets that sit in each tier.
Example: A $15 M portfolio at Fisher (1.00 % on $5 M+):
[ \frac{1.25% \times $1M + 1.125% \times $4M + 1.00% \times $10M}{$15M} \approx 1.03% ] - Add any ancillary charges (custodian, transaction, performance, account‑maintenance). Even a modest $150 annual fee adds ~0.001 % to a $15 M account—negligible, but it can matter at the low‑end of fee scales.
- Factor in expected returns. A 0.5 % lower fee translates into roughly a 5 % higher net return over a 10‑year horizon (assuming 6‑7 % gross returns). That compounding effect often outweighs marginal service differences.
- Consider tax efficiency. Fee‑only models (e.g., Pathstone, Empower) avoid hidden commissions that could generate taxable events. Some private banks embed “revenue‑sharing” on mutual funds, subtly raising the client’s tax bill.
4. Decision framework for a $10 M+ client
| Question | Why it matters | Typical answer from the firms |
|---|---|---|
| What level of personal interaction do I need? | Relationship‑driven service vs. self‑service. | Private banks → dedicated relationship manager; Digital firms → portal + periodic video calls. |
| Do I need integrated banking/credit? | Consolidating loans, mortgages, and cash management can simplify reporting. | Goldman, UBS, J.P. Morgan excel here; Vanguard/Fisher focus purely on investment mgmt. |
| Am I interested in alternative assets? | Alternatives often carry performance fees and higher minimums. | Goldman, Morgan Stanley, UBS provide structured‑product pipelines; Vanguard and Empower limit alternatives. |
| How important is cost transparency? | Hidden revenue‑sharing can erode returns. | Fee‑only firms (Pathstone, Empower, Vanguard) publish flat rates; Private banks may disclose “maximum” caps but negotiate down. |
| Do I require estate & tax planning? | Integrated services can reduce the need for separate advisors. | Fidelity, UBS, J.P. Morgan bundle tax/estate; Vanguard offers limited estate planning, mainly through partner networks. |
5. Bottom line
- If minimizing cost is the primary goal, Vanguard Personal Advisor Services (or its Flagship Select tier) and Empower deliver the lowest disclosed AUM fees (≈ 0.05 %‑0.49 % for $10 M+). They are well‑suited for investors comfortable with a largely self‑directed approach and who don’t need deep banking or bespoke philanthropy services.
- If you value a full‑service private‑bank experience (banking, credit lines, family‑office infrastructure, multi‑currency capability), the trade‑off is a higher fee ceiling (≈ 0.75 %‑1.50 % after negotiation). Goldman Sachs, UBS, and J.P. Morgan fall into this category.
- For a hybrid of technology efficiency and moderate personalization, Fidelity Private Wealth Management and Morgan Stanley’s Select UMA provide a middle ground—fees generally sit in the 0.5 %‑0.8 % range with robust planning resources.
- Performance‑fee structures (e.g., 20 % of outperformance) are usually only relevant when allocating a meaningful slice to hedge‑fund‑style strategies. Ensure any such arrangement is clearly disclosed in the Form ADV and that the hurdle rate aligns with your risk/return expectations.
Next steps you might take
- Shortlist 2‑3 firms that match your service preferences (e.g., “low‑cost + some estate planning” vs. “full private‑bank suite”).
- Request a detailed fee proposal that breaks out: advisory AUM fee, custodial fees, any performance or transaction fees, and a sample cost projection for a $15 M portfolio.
- Review each firm’s Form ADV (publicly available on the SEC website) to spot any revenue‑sharing arrangements or conflicts of interest.
- Run a side‑by‑side net‑return simulation (you can use a spreadsheet or a simple calculator) to see how a 0.5 % fee difference compounds over 10‑15 years.
Feel free to let me know if you’d like a deeper dive into any particular firm’s fee schedule, a template for the net‑return calculation, or guidance on how to interpret Form ADV disclosures.