Most investors want fiduciary advice — but many aren't actually getting it

Seven in 10 affluent investors say their financial provider is obligated to always act in their best interest. The problem: only 58% of retail investor assets actually sit in fiduciary relationships.

That disconnect, flagged in a new report by Ceulli, points to a significant knowledge gap among clients about the standard of care governing their accounts. For RIA advisors already held to the fiduciary standard – and for those weighing a move to the RIA channel – the data suggests a clear competitive opening.

The report, drawing on Cerulli's Affluent Investor Tracker survey, found that clients who believe their advisor operates as a fiduciary are meaningfully more satisfied and far less likely to shop around. Among that group, 70% said they were satisfied and not looking for a new provider, with just 29% open to considering alternatives.

The contrast with non-fiduciary relationships is sharp. Of investors who said their provider may recommend products that prioritize the provider's own interests, only 41% were satisfied and not seeking a change. More than half (56%) said they were open to other options.

That pattern should matter to any advisor evaluating their business model. Advisors operating under a fiduciary standard – the default for RIAs – appear to benefit from stronger client retention and lower vulnerability to competitors. Cerulli's data suggest that educating the 9% of affluent investors who don't even know what standard of care applies to their relationship could trigger a wave of account moves.

Read more: Fiduciary relationships pay off for advisors to the affluent: Cerulli

Overall satisfaction across the advice industry clocks in at 98%, but that headline number masks real fragility. About one-third of investors said they're satisfied with their current provider but open to switching if something better comes along. That figure climbed to 45% among households with $100,000 to $250,000 in financial assets – a segment that many RIAs and independent advisors are actively courting.

On fees, the findings reinforce a trajectory that favors the RIA model. Among affluent advisors, the largest share (36%) said they prefer paying an asset-based percentage fee, the standard pricing structure at most RIAs. According to the latest snapshot by the Investment Adviser Association, 95.5% of SEC registered investment advisers offered a fee based on a client’s AUM in 2024.

Commission-based arrangements drew 23% of affluent investors, while one-quarter of respondents said they plan to stick with no-fee, self-directed platforms. The bias for asset-based fees was most pronounced among the $2 million-$5 million crowd, where 42% said they prefer the arrangement. 

The appetite for paid advice more broadly has grown substantially over time. In 2010, just 38% of affluent investors said they were willing to pay for financial guidance. By last year, that figure had jumped to 68%. Cerulli attributed the shift partly to fee compression, wider access to advice, and the spread of fiduciary relationships – all dynamics that have fanned RIA channel growth over the past decade.

Willingness to pay for advice by year, 2010–2025. Willingness to pay for financial advice has increased 30 percentage points since 2010. Note: 2013 data not available. Source: Cerulli Affluent Investor Tracker (CAIT).

Willingness to pay tracks with wealth, but the demand isn't confined to the ultra-rich. Three-quarters of investors with $5 million or more said they'd pay for advice, as did 64% of those in the $2 million to $5 million range. Even among households with under $100,000, only about one-third were unwilling to pay.Michael Manning, research analyst at Cerulli, said that as wealth increases, "taxes become more burdensome, financial and estate planning becomes more complicated, and additional investment products (e.g., separately managed accounts, alternatives) become more accessible."

Manning added that self-directed platforms still need to plan for the moment when DIY investors require help.

"Firms operating these self-directed platforms must create a path of least resistance for these clients to transition from self-directed to advised during that time of need, or they will seek advice elsewhere," he said.