Fee-Only Financial Planner For High Net Worth Individuals | Unbiased Advice, Zero Commission | WaitFinance

Last updated: 22 July 2026

High net worth financial planning is often presented as an investment problem.

Find a skilled planner. Build a sophisticated portfolio. Reduce tax. Protect the family wealth. Then watch the numbers grow.

Real life is rarely that tidy.

Once wealth is spread across a home, investment properties, companies, trusts, superannuation, shares and private businesses, one decision can affect five others. Selling an asset may create tax. Paying down debt changes liquidity. Moving money into super can improve retirement planning while restricting access to the funds.

That is why many wealthy Australians look for a fee-only financial planner.

The appeal is straightforward: pay the planner directly and remove product commissions from the relationship.

According to my research, that can make the payment arrangement easier to understand. It does not automatically make every recommendation unbiased, inexpensive or suitable.

“Fee-only” describes how the planner says they are paid. You still need to ask what the fee covers, whether it rises with your wealth and whether the business receives any other financial benefit from your decisions.

For a high net worth household, those details can be worth tens of thousands of dollars over time.

General information only: This article explains how fee-only financial planning may work for high net worth Australians. It does not recommend a particular planner, fee structure, investment or wealth strategy. Tax, superannuation, estate and investment outcomes depend on your circumstances. Check a planner’s current registration, authority, fees and service documents before acting.

What does “fee-only financial planner” actually mean?

A fee-only financial planner is generally paid directly by the client rather than through commissions on the investments or products recommended.

The fee may be charged as:

• A fixed project fee.
• An hourly rate.
• An annual retainer.
• A percentage of assets under advice or management.
• A combination of fixed and percentage-based charges.

The term sounds simple. The underlying arrangement may not be.

A planner who receives no product commission could still charge an asset-based fee that increases as your portfolio grows. Their business may also have relationships with investment platforms, accountants, brokers or other service providers.

This does not mean the advice is poor.

It means “zero commission” should be the beginning of your questions, not the end of them.

Fee-only does not mean conflict-free

Every payment model creates an incentive of some kind.

A commission may encourage a product sale. An asset-based fee may encourage more money to remain invested under the planner’s service. An ongoing retainer may continue even when the client needs less work.

A fixed-fee planner can face pressure to complete a complex job within a limited number of hours.

The sensible question is not:

Does this planner have any incentive?

It is:

What are the incentives, and could they influence the recommendation?

A fee-only planner should be able to explain:

• Every amount you will pay.
• Who receives each payment.
• Whether the fee changes with your asset balance.
• Whether referrals create any benefit for the business.
• Which services are included.
• How the agreement can be ended.

From my experience reviewing financial-planning fee schedules, the most expensive arrangements are not always the ones with the highest headline percentage. They are often the ones where several smaller charges sit on top of one another and nobody converts them into a total dollar figure.

Why high net worth planning requires more than investment selection

A household with considerable wealth may have money spread across several structures and asset types.

The financial position could include:

• A family home.
• Investment properties.
• Direct Australian and international shares.
• Managed funds and exchange traded funds.
• Superannuation and pension accounts.
• A self-managed super fund.
• Companies and discretionary trusts.
• A private business.
• Loans to family members or related entities.
• Cash held for tax, business or future investments.

Each part may have a different owner, tax treatment, time frame and level of liquidity.

A planner who concentrates only on the listed investment portfolio may miss the real risks.

The largest exposure might be a private company. The greatest cash-flow pressure may come from property debt. The most urgent problem could be an outdated estate plan rather than an underperforming fund.

A proper high net worth review begins with a map of everything the household owns, owes, controls and expects to receive.

Your wealth needs one purpose before it needs more products

High net worth individuals are often offered more investment opportunities than they need.

Private credit, unlisted property, structured products, alternatives and exclusive funds may all sound more sophisticated than ordinary diversified investments.

Sophistication is not a financial goal.

The planner should first ask what the money is expected to achieve.

Possible goals include:

• Funding retirement without selling the family home.
• Reducing work while preserving the business.
• Supporting children without creating dependence.
• Transferring wealth between generations.
• Making regular charitable gifts.
• Protecting family assets from business risks.
• Maintaining enough accessible cash for opportunities.
• Simplifying finances before retirement or incapacity.

The purpose influences the strategy.

A portfolio designed to support annual family distributions should not be managed in the same way as money intended to remain invested for the next generation.

A high net worth label should not replace a written financial plan

Wealthy clients are sometimes moved straight into investment management.

The assumption is that because they already have money, their goals must be obvious.

They are not.

A written plan should cover:

• Current net worth.
• Ownership structures.
• Household and business cash flow.
• Debt and guarantees.
• Investment allocation.
• Expected tax payments.
• Retirement income.
• Insurance and risk protection.
• Estate-planning priorities.
• Family support and philanthropy.
• Implementation responsibilities.

Without that structure, the planner may end up managing assets without addressing the reasons the assets exist.

How fee-only planners charge wealthy clients

There is no single fee-only model.

Fixed project fee

A fixed fee may cover a defined piece of work, such as a retirement plan, inheritance strategy or investment review.

This can work well when the scope is clear.

Ask what happens when additional work appears. Tax coordination, trust reviews and complex portfolio analysis may sit outside the quoted price.

Annual retainer

An annual retainer may cover planning meetings, investment reviews and access to the adviser throughout the year.

The fee remains predictable, although the client needs to know what work occurs each year.

Hourly fee

An hourly arrangement may suit clients seeking a second opinion or one narrow answer.

It gives you control over the amount of work commissioned. Complex matters can still become expensive when several professionals are involved.

Asset-based fee

An asset-based fee is calculated as a percentage of the money under advice or management.

The arrangement may appear aligned because the planner earns more when the portfolio grows.

It also means the charge can rise without any change to the service.

Convert every percentage into dollars

Assume a planner charges 0.80% a year on invested assets.

Our data shows what the percentage means in practical terms.

The calculation does not prove that the fee is excessive. A client with companies, trusts, retirement modelling, family meetings and regular strategy work may receive substantial value.

It does show why percentages should never be considered in isolation.

Ask whether the planner’s work genuinely doubles when the portfolio grows from $2 million to $4 million.

The advice fee may be only the first layer

A fee-only planner may recommend products carrying their own costs.

Your total annual cost could include:

• The financial-planning fee.
• Portfolio-management charges.
• Platform or administration fees.
• Managed-fund fees.
• Brokerage and transaction costs.
• Custody charges.
• Accounting and audit fees.
• Legal and estate-planning costs.

Ask for a consolidated cost statement showing the amount in dollars and as a percentage of the relevant assets.

Our guide to the real cost of hiring a financial planner in Australia explains how initial, ongoing and product fees can accumulate.

A worked total-cost comparison

Consider a household with a $3 million investment portfolio.

Both planners appear to charge the same $18,000 advice fee.

Our data shows that the recommended account and investments create a $9,000 difference in the illustrative total.

These figures are examples, not typical market prices or forecasts.

The lesson is simple: compare the whole arrangement, not just the adviser’s invoice.

Unbiased advice should include the option to do nothing

A planner should be willing to recommend that an existing arrangement remains unchanged.

That does not mean no work has been done.

A thorough review may conclude that:

• The current investment portfolio remains suitable.
• The existing super fund is competitively priced.
• Debt should be reduced before more money is invested.
• A proposed trust would add cost without solving a real problem.
• An existing property should not be sold yet.
• No new financial product is required.

Advice becomes harder to trust when every review leads to a transfer, product replacement or new investment.

Ask the planner:

How would you be paid if your recommendation were to make no product changes?

A fee-only model should make that answer easier, but you still need to hear it.

Tax strategy should be coordinated, not improvised

High net worth financial decisions frequently have tax consequences.

A planner may help model:

• When assets could be sold.
• How investment income may affect cash flow.
• Whether additional super contributions fit the wider plan.
• How debt should be allocated.
• The financial effect of business distributions.
• How retirement income could be structured.

A financial planner does not automatically replace a registered tax agent or accountant.

The tax professional should confirm the treatment of transactions, structures and deductions.

The planner should then incorporate that advice into the broader financial plan.

Read financial planner versus accountant before assuming one professional can perform both jobs.

Tax minimisation should not control every decision

A wealthy client may be offered strategies primarily because they reduce tax.

Tax matters. So do investment risk, liquidity, fees, administration and legal control.

A strategy that saves tax but locks up too much money may weaken the household position.

A structure that reduces one liability may create years of accounting and legal costs.

The planner should compare:

• The expected tax benefit.
• The cost of establishing the strategy.
• Annual administration expenses.
• Restrictions on access to money.
• Investment and legal risks.
• The effect if the law or family circumstances change.

The goal is stronger after-tax wealth, not the lowest possible tax bill at any cost.

Our article on financial planning for tax optimisation explains why tax should support the financial plan rather than replace it.

Portfolio diversification becomes harder as wealth grows

A high net worth investor may own many assets and still be poorly diversified.

Several Australian share funds may hold the same large companies. Investment properties may all sit in one city. Business wealth and personal income may depend on the same industry.

The planner should examine the underlying exposure rather than count product names.

The review may consider:

• Australian and international shares.
• Property by location and type.
• Fixed interest and credit risk.
• Cash and short-term reserves.
• Currency exposure.
• Private businesses.
• Unlisted investments.
• Employer or industry concentration.

The purpose is not to eliminate losses.

It is to stop one asset, market or event from deciding the outcome of the entire family wealth plan.

Read what your financial planner should explain about portfolio diversification before accepting a list of funds as proof of diversification.

Private investments need more scrutiny, not less

Wealthier clients often receive access to investments that are not available through ordinary retail platforms.

Limited access can create a sense of exclusivity. It does not remove risk.

Before proceeding, ask:

• How is the investment valued?
• How quickly can money be withdrawn?
• What happens if withdrawals are suspended?
• Who controls the underlying assets?
• How much debt is used?
• What fees are charged inside the structure?
• Does the planner or their business receive any benefit?
• What percentage of total wealth would be exposed?

An illiquid investment may be unsuitable even when the expected return looks attractive.

The household still needs cash for tax, spending, opportunities and unexpected events.

Liquidity deserves its own strategy

High net worth does not always mean cash-rich.

A family may own valuable property and a successful business while holding relatively little accessible money.

The planner should calculate how much liquidity is required for:

• Household spending.
• Tax payments.
• Business obligations.
• Loan repayments.
• Property costs.
• Family support.
• Investment opportunities.
• Emergencies.

Keeping cash has an opportunity cost. Having too little can force the sale of assets at a poor time.

A written liquidity policy gives the cash a purpose rather than treating it as money that has failed to find an investment.

Debt should be reviewed across the whole family balance sheet

Wealthy households may use debt for property, business and investment purposes.

Each loan needs to be assessed by:

• Interest rate.
• Repayment terms.
• Security.
• Purpose of the borrowing.
• Cash-flow effect.
• Refinancing risk.
• Personal guarantees.

A planner paid as a percentage of invested assets may lose revenue when money is withdrawn to reduce debt.

That does not make the planner’s recommendation wrong. It does create a question worth asking:

Would paying down debt improve my position even though it reduces the assets on which your fee is calculated?

The answer should be supported by numbers.

Business wealth and personal wealth need to be connected

For business owners, the company may be both an income source and the largest family asset.

That creates concentration.

If the business suffers, salary, dividends and net worth may all fall together.

The planner should consider:

• How much personal wealth sits outside the business.
• Business debt and guarantees.
• Insurance and succession planning.
• Future sale or transition options.
• Cash retained for business operations.
• Retirement assets held independently of the company.

A wealth plan that ignores the business is incomplete.

An investment plan that depends entirely on the eventual sale price of the business may be fragile.

Estate planning is not an optional extra

As assets and structures multiply, the question of control becomes more complicated.

A will may not control every asset directly. Trusts, companies, jointly owned property and superannuation can follow different arrangements.

A planner can help identify the financial issues that need attention.

A solicitor should prepare and review legal documents.

The discussion may cover:

• Who controls companies and trusts after death or incapacity.
• How superannuation nominations fit the estate plan.
• Whether family members can manage inherited assets.
• How debts and guarantees would be handled.
• Whether inheritances should pass directly or through a structure.
• How charitable intentions will be funded.

Our guide to estate and wealth-transfer planning explains why ownership, control and beneficiary arrangements need to be reviewed together.

The planner should help prepare the next generation

Transferring wealth involves more than transferring assets.

Children or other beneficiaries may have little experience managing investments, businesses or trusts.

Families may avoid discussing money until a death or illness forces the conversation.

A planner can help organise meetings around:

• The purpose of the family wealth.
• Financial education.
• Roles and responsibilities.
• Trust and company governance.
• Expectations around gifts and loans.
• Philanthropy.
• Privacy and family boundaries.

The planner should not decide the family values.

They can help turn those values into practical financial arrangements.

A fee-only planner should provide an investment policy

A written investment policy can prevent the portfolio from changing every time markets become uncomfortable.

It may record:

• The purpose of the portfolio.
• The investment time frame.
• The target asset allocation.
• Acceptable ranges for each asset class.
• Liquidity requirements.
• Rebalancing rules.
• Restrictions on certain investments.
• The process for assessing new opportunities.
• The circumstances that justify a strategy change.

This creates a reference point.

When a new private investment or market prediction appears, the question becomes whether it fits the agreed policy rather than whether it sounds exciting today.

Investment performance is not the only measure of success

A high net worth plan can succeed even when one portfolio has an ordinary year.

Progress may also include:

• Reducing unnecessary fees.
• Improving liquidity.
• Lowering concentrated risks.
• Completing estate documents.
• Separating business and retirement wealth.
• Creating a sustainable retirement-income plan.
• Documenting family loans.
• Preparing successors for future responsibilities.

The planner should define how each goal will be measured.

Investment returns need an appropriate benchmark, but the household plan needs its own scorecard too.

What an ongoing service should include

An annual fee should pay for identifiable work.

Ask which services are guaranteed and which cost extra.

Do not accept “ongoing wealth management” as a complete description.

Questions to ask a fee-only financial planner

1. Are you registered and authorised to provide the advice I need?
2. What does “fee-only” mean in your business?
3. Do you or a related business receive any commissions or referral benefits?
4. What will I pay during the first year?
5. What will I pay in later years?
6. Which assets are included in an asset-based fee?
7. Can I pay a fixed fee instead?
8. Which services are included in the annual charge?
9. What work will be completed by other professionals?
10. How do you assess trusts, companies and private businesses?
11. How many investment options do you compare?
12. Will you recommend debt reduction when it lowers your fee?
13. How do you assess private or unlisted investments?
14. How will progress be measured?
15. How can I end the agreement?

Use our questions to ask a financial planner before handing over a single dollar as a shorter checklist for the first interview.

Documents to request before paying

Ask for:

• The Financial Services Guide.
• A written scope of advice.
• The complete fee schedule.
• An ongoing-service calendar.
• Details of related businesses and referral arrangements.
• The cancellation process.
• The complaint procedure.
• An explanation of how assets will be held.

Read the documents away from the meeting.

Make sure the written terms match what was promised verbally.

If the planner says the business receives no commissions, ask for that statement in writing.

Red flags for high net worth clients

Step back when the planner:

• Promises superior or guaranteed investment returns.
• Uses “exclusive” as the main reason to recommend an investment.
• Refuses to convert fees into dollars.
• Recommends replacing products before reviewing them.
• Pushes several services provided by related businesses.
• Cannot explain who holds or controls invested assets.
• Dismisses liquidity concerns.
• Suggests tax strategies without involving a qualified tax professional.
• Treats estate planning as a will-only exercise.
• Pressures you to decide during the first meeting.

A polished wealth-management presentation does not replace due diligence.

Fixed fee or asset-based fee?

A fixed fee may offer clearer pricing.

An asset-based fee may be easier to administer and may rise and fall with the portfolio.

Neither model is always better.

Compare:

• The annual dollar cost.
• The expected amount of work.
• How the fee changes when assets grow.
• Whether non-investment advice is included.
• Whether the planner charges on cash.
• How easily the agreement can be changed.

A wealthy client with relatively simple needs may prefer a fixed annual fee.

A household requiring frequent investment management, family meetings and coordination across several structures may accept a higher ongoing cost.

The payment method should fit the service, not the prestige of the client.

You may not need ongoing wealth management

Some high net worth individuals need one defined piece of advice rather than a permanent relationship.

One-off advice may suit you when:

• You want a second opinion on an existing portfolio.
• You are assessing a business sale.
• You have received an inheritance.
• You need a retirement-income plan.
• You want current fees and structures reviewed.
• You can implement and monitor the plan yourself.

Ongoing advice may make more sense when decisions are frequent, structures are complicated or family coordination is required.

Do not pay indefinitely for a problem that was solved in the first year.

Compare at least two planners using the same brief

Give each planner the same description of your needs.

Then compare:

A comparison becomes unreliable when one planner quotes for investment management and another quotes for complete financial planning.

Make sure the services being compared are genuinely similar.

Zero commission should lead to clearer advice, not blind trust

A fee-only arrangement can remove an obvious incentive to sell commission-paying products.

That is useful.

It does not guarantee that fees are low, that every conflict has disappeared or that the planner understands your family, business and estate structures.

The value comes from what happens after the payment model is disclosed.

Does the planner examine the entire financial position? Are alternatives considered? Can they recommend debt reduction, simpler investments or no product change? Are fees explained in dollars? Will they work with your accountant and solicitor rather than reaching beyond their role?

For a high net worth household, unbiased advice should be visible in the process.

It should appear in the questions asked, the options compared and the willingness to recommend a course of action that does not increase the planner’s revenue.

Zero commission is a useful starting point.

Clear scope, transparent costs and advice tied to your actual goals are what make the relationship worth paying for.