FT Logo

Copy article

FT Editor Banner

'Advisers are not charities': investment minimums and the advice gap

Journalist: Hereward Mills, FT Adviser

ended 01. June 2026

A recent FT Adviser article on female footballers and investment minimums incited a robust comment section on the advice gap, fee structures and adviser business models. 

One comment said: “Advisers are not charities and regulated advice carries compliance costs, PI insurance, admin overhead, Consumer Duty obligations, and ongoing servicing requirements.”

My questions to advisers are therefore: 

  1. Are minimum portfolio sizes a commercial necessity? Or do they widen the advice gap? 
  2. Do fixed fee models make advice more accessible? 
  3. Should the responsibility for fixing the advice gap fall on firms or the regulator? 
  4. Will targeted support and AI help make advising less wealthy clients more commercially viable?

Thanks in advance for all comments. 

Hereward 

2 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Copy

Editor
Paul DenleyVerified
CEO at Oakham Wealth Management
In light of Consumer Duty, PI insurance, and compliance overheads, minimum portfolio sizes are often a commercial necessity rather than a moral failing. The fixed costs of regulated advice do not disappear simply because a client's portfolio is smaller.

But the consequence is an advice gap that locks many people out until they are already wealthy. Increasingly, that pushes consumers towards unregulated influencers on social media, where confidence can substitute for competence and accountability is often absent.

Fixed fees are not a silver bullet either. If a flat fee equals months of someone's savings, the barrier can remain just as high.

Solving this falls on neither firms nor the regulator alone. If regulation could evolve to enable proportionate targeted support, and firms can embrace AI to reduce administrative costs, advice for smaller clients could become far more commercially viable over time.
Copy

Editor
Nouran MoustafaVerified
Practice Principal & IFA at Roxton Wealth
Minimum portfolio sizes are commercially understandable, but we should be honest: they also widen the advice gap. Advice is expensive to deliver because regulation, PI cover, admin and ongoing servicing all have a real cost. Advisers are not charities, but that cannot be the end of the conversation.

The profession needs more flexible models. Not every client needs a full ongoing wealth proposition from day one. Fixed fees, workplace partnerships, education-led models and targeted support could all help people access guidance earlier, before they become “profitable” clients.

The regulator has a role, but firms cannot wait for permission to care. We need to design commercially sensible ways to serve people with potential, not just people with assets.

AI may help by reducing admin and improving education, but it must not become cheap pseudo-advice. The future is not lower-quality advice for less wealthy clients. It is smarter delivery, clearer boundaries and better access.