Are You Overpaying Your Advisor?

Advisor fees are one of those costs that feel locked in after the first meeting, rarely revisited, and almost never benchmarked.

We surveyed 233 verified Long Angle members with an average net worth of $17M to understand how the community uses and pays for financial advisory services.

Most advised households (71%) pay AUM-based fees. The average AUM fee is 0.70%, with most respondents paying below 1%.

Using net worth as a proxy for managed assets, average advisor fees step down linearly as household wealth increases: from roughly 0.8% to under 0.7%, then below 0.6% for households exceeding $25M.

If you're paying 1%+ on a $5M portfolio, the data suggests you're above peer-level rates. That's worth a renegotiation, or at least a conversation.

For more HNW benchmarks, read the full 2026 High-Net-Worth Asset Allocation Report.

Most networking fails because the system was never designed to produce depth. Large events are optimized for exposure, and exposure without connection rarely turns into anything lasting.

The people who build strong networks understand something others overlook: relationships are built through repeated, intentional interactions.

We put together a simple networking guide built around four principles:

Read the guide here: How to Build Meaningful Connections: A Simple Guide for Better Networking.

Commentary by Patrick Nolan, VP of Investments at Long Angle Management

A Wall Street Journal analysis concluded that four of the largest private-credit funds, managed by Apollo, Ares, Blackstone, and Blue Owl, are carrying more software exposure than their filings suggest. On average, the funds reported about 19% software concentration. The Journal believes the actual figure is closer to 25% by their classification.

The observed gap is worth considering, but the cause is likely less sinister than the headlines imply. There is no single agreed-upon standard for how private credit funds should classify their portfolio companies. Some follow the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS). Others use end-market logic, grouping a healthcare SaaS company under "healthcare" because that is the industry it serves. 

When each manager uses their own methodology, comparing sector concentrations across funds becomes difficult. Classifications can be inconsistent, but implying a deliberate obfuscation seems like a stretch.

It's unrealistic to assume that a journalist's reclassifications are better than the manager's. One could take the opposite approach and move fringe cases out of software, painting a picture where private credit actually has less software exposure than reported.

Ultimately, investors need to trust their managers and their classifications. For fringe cases, there may not be a great solution and investors should rely on the manager's judgment, not the headline.

Long Angle hosts regular members-only webinars on investing, tax strategy, life design, and more, led by subject matter experts and curated for the specific decisions high-net-worth professionals are navigating.

All sessions are recorded and available to Long Angle's 8,000+ members. Not a member yet? Apply here.

Chris Bendtsen

Insights Lead, Long Angle

Connect with me: LinkedIn

Apply for membership

Have thoughts? Reply to this email, I’d love to hear from you!