3 Brokerage Firms – An Ultra High Net Worth Investigation

The results are in from a detailed look at three of the most prominent investment brokerage firms.

If you have ultra-high net worth and feel uncertain about your current financial strategy, you’re likely facing an overwhelming number of options. Large national firms like Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard offer one path, while independent wealth managers and multi-family offices offer another.

But when reviewing their websites, many of the offerings appear nearly identical. It’s hard to identify clear differences without committing a significant amount of time to research.

Surely, there should be a simpler way to understand how major brokerage firms compare to independent advisors and multi-family office solutions—something more direct and objective.

That’s what this page offers.

Here, we summarize insights gathered from a close review of three major investment firms—Vanguard, Schwab, and Fidelity—highlighting how they operate, what they provide (and don’t), and how they differ from other investment management options.

A few minutes here could save you hours—possibly weeks—of research. If you’re looking to make informed decisions about your financial future, this is a helpful place to start.

If you take a few minutes to read this, you will have dramatically enlightened yourself about how these companies operate, what they offer and don’t offer, and how they’re different from wealth management specialists. The time you’ll spend on this page will save you weeks that you would have to otherwise spend to gather the same information. 

Yes, weeks. Perhaps months.

So take a few moments to advance your understanding and gain some much-needed clarity. Your future financial security and the life you desire to live are at stake.

What Is Ultra High Net Worth Investment Expertise?

If your net worth exceeds $25 million, this is likely the question at the heart of your financial decision-making.

At that level of wealth, nearly every investment firm—whether it’s a national brokerage, a regional bank, or a boutique advisory group—will claim they can meet your needs. But when it comes to truly complex financial lives, not all solutions are created equal.

We recently spoke with an individual whose net worth exceeded $300 million. His financial situation was so intricate that his tax documents were stacked several inches thick. In pursuit of more specialized support, he explored the family office service at a well-known institution. Despite the branding, it became clear the offering lacked the depth and integration he needed—it was simply another investment account management service with a fee attached.

That’s not what high-net-worth expertise looks like.

So what does it look like? And who’s genuinely equipped to deliver it?

This question guided our investigation into how large national brokerage firms—such as Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard—approach ultra high net worth investment management. While there are other firms with similar scale, the insights shared here reflect broader trends across many major institutions offering private wealth services.

How We Conducted This Investigation

Most major brokerage firms offer some variation of wealth management services. Schwab refers to theirs as Private Client. Vanguard calls theirs Flagship Select. Fidelity offers a tiered program under the broader label of Wealth Management.

Each firm provides a section on its website describing these services, usually accompanied by a phone number or online form to initiate the process.

To better understand what these offerings actually look like in practice, we created a fictional ultra high net worth individual—with a full financial profile, career background, life goals, and a list of challenges to address.

We then hired someone to go through the wealth management intake process with each of the three firms: Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard. The objective was to evaluate the client experience, understand the strategies proposed, and examine the scope and depth of service delivered.

Our investigator documented each interaction thoroughly, and the findings were compiled into a series of articles. What you’re reading now is a high-level summary of that review. Throughout this guide, you’ll find links to deeper insights from each firm interaction.

In general, all three firms showed strengths in specific areas. However, we also identified limitations—particularly in addressing the needs of families with complex, ultra high net worth portfolios. For investors with standard planning needs, these platforms may offer solid options.

But if your situation is more advanced, the experience can vary.

Let’s begin with the first key challenge our investigator explored…

Wealth Management Experts Who Don’t Agree

You might expect that most wealth management professionals would align on the fundamentals—especially when it comes to key topics like market outlook and investment strategy.

However, our investigation revealed something different.

Depending on which firm you speak with, your wealth management plan could be based on entirely different assumptions about where the market is headed and how your assets should be allocated.

This variation highlights an important reality: even among well-established firms, there’s no single consensus on how best to serve ultra-high net worth individuals.

Differences in Market Forecasts

Differences in Market Forecasts

Vanguard indicated that their long-term outlook projects lower investment returns over the next ten years compared to historical averages. However, they suggested that international markets may outperform during this period.

Fidelity, on the other hand, shared a more optimistic view. Their analysts believe we are at the start of a new business cycle—a phase they associate with strong growth potential, particularly in the early years. They also noted that today’s bond markets carry more risk than in the past. As a result, they cautioned that portfolios traditionally seen as “conservative,” particularly those heavily weighted in bonds, may underperform if interest rates rise.

Schwab, in contrast, did not provide this level of detail in the conversations we had.

So what’s the takeaway?

It’s not that any one firm is necessarily wrong. But when one expects a period of subdued returns and another forecasts strong growth in the same timeframe, it highlights a core challenge: these assumptions shape the foundation of their investment strategies.

And no matter how confident the prediction, the future is never certain. Few foresaw global disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, the next major shift in markets may be just as unpredictable.

If you’re entrusting eight or nine figures of wealth to a firm, how much does their forecast influence your plan, and what happens if they’re wrong?

Differences in Concentration Risk Protection

Concentration risk arises when a significant portion of your wealth is tied to a single asset or asset class. A common example is holding a large amount of company stock. In some cases, individuals have had more than 70% of their net worth in one company’s shares.

That’s a significant risk.

It’s easy to assume a well-known company will remain stable, but history has shown otherwise. Former employees of once-prominent companies like AOL-Time Warner, Myspace, Enron, and Washington Mutual know how quickly things can change.

Similarly, having too much of your portfolio in a small number of individual stocks can expose you to unnecessary volatility.

So, how do large brokerage firms approach concentration risk?

• Fidelity advises keeping no more than 5% of your portfolio in a single stock. Their advisor also referenced that JP Morgan’s threshold is typically around 10%.
  
• Vanguard follows a similar 5% guideline for individual stocks. Additionally, they recommend capping all individual securities—across stocks, bonds, and other instruments—at no more than 20% of the total portfolio. If that threshold is exceeded, Vanguard generally recommends reallocating into index mutual funds, which form the core of their investment approach.
  
• Schwab did not provide a specific policy or recommendation on concentration limits during our consultations.

While each firm has its own perspective, the way it addresses concentration risk can significantly impact how your portfolio is managed, especially if you hold substantial positions in individual securities.

Is This What Protecting Your Wealth Looks Like?

In each conversation we had with the high-net-worth specialists at these three firms, the representatives provided thoughtful insights and took time to understand the needs we presented. To be clear, this isn’t a critique of the individuals or the firm’s overall. In fact, many custodial accounts are often held at institutions like these.

That said, a pattern emerged that raises an important question.

Throughout our conversations, we emphasized that wealth protection—not aggressive growth—was the primary objective for our hypothetical ultra high net worth investor.

All three advisors acknowledged that preserving wealth aligned with our goals. They agreed that, given the scenario, a cautious and balanced approach was most appropriate.

And yet, the investment proposals we received looked like this:

• Vanguard: 75% stocks, 25% bonds
  
• Schwab: 80% stocks, 20% bonds
  
• Fidelity: A mix of 85/15 and 70/30 stock-to-bond allocations across different segments of the portfolio

When you consider market volatility and historical downturns—where portfolios have experienced declines of 30%, 40%, or even 50%—these allocations appear heavily skewed toward risk. In past recessions and crashes, such exposure has led to steep losses, including scenarios where ultra high net worth investors lost substantial portions of their wealth.

This isn’t just theory. After the early 2000s tech crash, some investors reported losses of more than 80% under similar allocations.

The takeaway? These portfolios may not reflect a truly protective investment strategy, especially when a family’s wealth runs into the eight or nine figures. While such allocations might be labeled as “moderate,” that definition shifts with scale. For someone managing $40 million or more, an 80/20 allocation could introduce substantial risk.

If your top priority is long-term preservation, it’s worth asking: are these allocations consistent with that objective?

A Look Inside the Consultation Process of Large Brokerage Firms

This experience offered a valuable behind-the-scenes view into how major firms approach wealth management for high-net-worth individuals. We documented the full process in a detailed article focused on the consultations we had with Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard, which you can explore separately.

Below is a brief overview of some key limitations we observed during those consultations:

Slow to Onboard Us

Each firm showed delays and inconsistencies in the process of connecting us with a wealth manager who could understand the needs of an ultra high net worth scenario.

Vanguard responded promptly at first, but then there was a long gap—over a month—before we heard back from a high-net-worth specialist. We ultimately had to follow up on ourselves to continue the process.

Fidelity initially introduced us to a representative better suited for general investment inquiries. While professional, this person was not equipped to address the complexity of the scenario we presented. It took several steps before we were connected with someone more aligned with high-net-worth planning.

Schwab moved the fastest among the three, but it still took more than a month from our first point of contact to speak with a dedicated wealth manager.

It’s worth noting: we reached out to each company using the contact options listed on their dedicated wealth management web pages—not through general customer service. Even so, the process involved multiple handoffs and delays before reaching the appropriate advisor.

This raises a reasonable question:

If this is the standard onboarding experience for someone expressing clear ultra-high net worth needs, how ready are these firms to serve more complex clients from the outset? How much of their process is built around their broader base of average investors?

And how much time are you prepared to wait before even having a conversation with the right advisor?

Requiring Accounts

All three firms required us to create an account before providing a proposal. Vanguard used a guest account, which was quick and simple.

Fidelity and Schwab, however, asked us to open full accounts—even if unfunded. That meant handing over personal information before we’d even decided whether to proceed. Fidelity went as far as requesting a Social Security number.

You shouldn’t have to open an account just to explore wealth management options.

Slow Investment Proposals

It took well over a month—nearly two—before we received full proposals from the firms we contacted. Schwab delivered theirs the fastest, but it also had the least detail.

Vague Investment Proposals

As noted earlier, Schwab’s proposal lacked detail. It didn’t address the specific scenarios we shared—just offered a generalized, aggressive asset allocation and some projection data tied to their standard investment process.

There’s a reason the proposal was so limited, which we’ll touch on shortly.

Fidelity’s proposal was more specific in some ways, particularly during the discussion. They addressed several of our more complex questions and challenges. However, they didn’t provide a written plan or any projections to support their recommendations.

Vanguard was the most forthcoming in sharing an actual proposal. It included specific fund recommendations—all Vanguard funds. But the proposal didn’t reflect the portfolio size we discussed and didn’t account for any of the complex factors we presented. It appeared to be a generic template.

You can review more of what each firm included in their investment proposals in the detailed breakdown that follows.

Partial Wealth Management – What They Do and Don’t Do

A consistent limitation across all three firms was the way they segment services across multiple departments and specialists.

Large brokerage firms don’t provide in-house execution for services like tax planning, accounting, estate planning, or life insurance. They may offer general advice in these areas and connect you with internal specialists for guidance, but they don’t handle the implementation.

In Schwab’s case, we were referred to external wealth management specialists for more advanced needs. Their role is more like a general contractor—helping you identify qualified professionals, but not performing the work themselves.

Instead, you’re often expected to find and coordinate with outside professionals. Schwab and Fidelity can recommend vetted specialists from their networks. Vanguard, however, typically leaves that legwork to the client.

This structure can make it harder to manage complex financial needs in one place, especially if you’re looking for a more integrated experience.

This distinction is important when comparing full-service firms with platforms that function more like directories or networks. Understanding the boundaries of each firm’s business model can help set realistic expectations from the start.

Schwab operates sort of like a general contractor on a construction job. They know good people to work with in the various specialties and can help you find them, but they don’t do the actual work. So they help you build a team.

This is a HUGE difference between the big brokerage firms and an independent wealth management multi-family office.

See 3 ways brokerage firms fall short in serving ultra-high net worth families.

Will Their Investment Plans Work?

As mentioned earlier, it took time to receive proposals from each of the three brokerage firms.

But once you’re holding a proposal, the next question becomes: how do you know it’s going to work? And more importantly, what does “success” even mean when it comes to wealth management?

Success isn’t just about reaching financial “goals” like buying a second home, selling a business, or starting a foundation, though those are part of it. At its core, success means being able to live the life you want without financial stress or uncertainty undermining it.

If you’re meeting objectives but are constantly worried about markets crashing or your plan falling short, that’s not peace of mind. That’s financial anxiety.

That’s why any investment plan—especially one managing significant wealth—needs a way to evaluate its likelihood of success. Ideally, this involves data-driven modeling: objective, quantitative analysis based on historical trends and risk scenarios.

So, what do large brokerage firms use?

• Fidelity and Schwab rely on Monte Carlo simulations.
  
• Vanguard uses Monte Carlo as well, along with its own model, VCMM (Vanguard Capital Markets Model), which incorporates a wider range of economic indicators such as GDP growth, interest rates, and unemployment.

These models use historical data to simulate thousands of possible market outcomes, giving you a probability of success for your portfolio, based on how well it may perform under various conditions.

However, one concern that emerged in our investigation is that some Monte Carlo models omit certain major downturns, including the Great Depression and the 2008 financial crisis. When these events are excluded, the projections can appear more optimistic than reality might warrant.

When we asked one advisor why these scenarios were left out, the answer was simply, “That’s how the model works.”

It’s an important detail to be aware of. If your plan is being evaluated without factoring in some of history’s worst market events, it may not offer the full picture of how your portfolio would perform under pressure.

Understanding what’s included—and what’s not—in these models can make a significant difference in long-term planning confidence.

By pulling data from the last several decades, advisors can run your plan through a model like Monte Carlo to see how well it should perform – even under stress.

Sounds reasonable, right? Well, here’s the problem.

Monte Carlo excludes the worst market events in history. It excludes the Great Depression. It excludes the 2008 crash. It excludes the biggest market downturns. So that means, when Monte Carlo projects how well your investment portfolio will perform, it is giving you a falsely inflated picture of reality.

Why would you exclude these market downturns? They really happened! And everyone has to live through them. So why create a tool that pretends as if they didn’t, and then use that to tell you how well your portfolio is likely to perform?

It is truly baffling. In our investigation, we even asked this question of one of the advisors, and he didn’t really have an answer. That’s just how the model works, he said.

Well, great.

Monte Carlo is basically a sham. And you need something better if you want true peace of mind about your long-term financial security – no matter what the market does.

Some Points in Favor of Large Brokerage Firms

Our investigation also uncovered several strengths at Vanguard, Schwab, and Fidelity. As noted throughout, these are well-established firms with robust infrastructures. While there may be limitations in how they serve ultra-high net worth individuals, each offers value in specific areas.

Here are some of the strengths we observed:

• Dedicated services for high-net-worth clients – These firms offer specialized tiers that go beyond their standard retail investor experience.

• Knowledgeable advisors – The high-net-worth advisors we spoke with were well-informed and showed genuine interest in understanding complex financial needs.

• Team-based support – Advisors are backed by teams of analysts and service professionals, which enhances the depth of support available.

• Lower fee structures – Each firm offers reduced advisory fees for clients with higher portfolio values.

• User-friendly digital platforms – Clients benefit from well-designed dashboards, tools, and access to key account information online.

There’s more to consider regarding the strengths and limitations of each firm. In the following section, we explore both sides in more detail to provide a fuller perspective.

Customization – the Gold Standard for Wealth Management

When comparing financial services, one of the most important areas to evaluate is how firms approach customization. For individuals and families with significant wealth, a one-size-fits-all approach rarely meets the complexity of their financial lives.

Most firms claim to offer personalized investment and portfolio strategies. And to some degree, they do. For example, adjusting asset allocation based on general risk tolerance—such as offering a 60/40 mix for more conservative clients and 80/20 for more growth-oriented ones—is a form of customization.

But for ultra-high net worth individuals, true customization involves far more than asset mix.

Every firm will say it creates customized portfolios and investment plans.

Complex tax situations, estate considerations, business holdings, and generational planning all require integrated, tailored strategies. A surface-level adjustment in allocation doesn’t address these deeper needs.

When evaluating whether a firm’s version of “customization” truly fits your financial life, it’s worth looking beyond asset allocation models and asking: how deeply are they prepared to understand and plan for the full picture?

Here are 8 aspects of customization for high net worth investors. And again, you can read much more about these here.

1. Choosing Funds

Most large brokerage firms allow for some customization in the types of funds included in a portfolio. Options may include large-cap, mid-cap, ETFs, index funds, actively managed funds, and others. This level of flexibility is common and typically available across many platforms.

2. Choose from ALL Funds

While large brokerage firms often say you can choose from a wide range of funds—including those managed by other companies—there are important limitations to be aware of.

In our review, we found that proposals typically favored in-house fund options. For example, Vanguard’s recommendation included only Vanguard-managed funds. Fidelity acknowledged that using non-Fidelity funds could result in higher fees, and they explained their rationale for this pricing structure.

This approach isn’t unusual—many firms prioritize their own products. However, it does affect how much true flexibility and customization is being offered. While it’s possible to access a broad universe of funds, in practice, the default recommendations often remain in-house options.

3. Asset Allocation

As mentioned earlier, the baseline allocations proposed to us were: Vanguard at 75/25, Schwab at 80/20, and Fidelity offering variations starting at 85/15.

All three firms stated that these allocations could be adjusted. However, the challenge lies in determining how to adjust them—and more importantly, why.

This highlights the need for objective, data-driven tools that can evaluate the likelihood of a plan’s long-term success under various market conditions.

While asset allocation is technically customizable, it shouldn’t rely solely on general assumptions about risk tolerance. In our case, we clearly emphasized wealth preservation as a priority, yet the recommended allocations leaned toward higher-risk strategies. In a severe downturn, these levels of exposure could lead to significant losses, potentially in the 30–50% range.

The ability to tailor asset allocation is important. But without deeper analysis and planning, that customization may not align with what’s truly needed.

4. Other Investment Opportunities

This is an area where large brokerage firms tend to have more limited flexibility. What about investments outside of traditional stocks and bonds—such as real estate, private businesses, or life insurance strategies?

These types of opportunities often play a significant role in diversified planning for ultra-high net worth individuals, particularly when the goal is long-term stability or reduced market exposure.

In our experience, the firms we reviewed did not actively incorporate these types of investments into their proposed plans. While they may provide general advice or referrals, these alternatives typically aren’t integrated into the core investment strategy.

As a result, if you’re looking to include broader asset classes as part of a truly customized financial plan, it’s important to understand where a firm’s planning scope may begin—and where it may end.

5. Retirement Account Distributions

Withdrawals from retirement accounts such as IRAs and 401(k)s can be complex. Tax implications vary based on income levels, and incorrect timing or strategy can result in penalties and increased taxes.

Any truly customized financial plan should account for these factors. Overlooking them can lead to missed opportunities or avoidable costs.

6. Tax Planning

Effective tax planning is a core component of any truly customized financial strategy—especially for individuals with ultra high net worth.

Tax laws vary by state, and different types of income or accounts—such as retirement withdrawals, inheritances, and estates—can carry distinct tax implications. Timing also plays a critical role, as certain strategies must be implemented well in advance to be effective.

Because tax exposure can significantly impact long-term outcomes, any personalized plan should take these factors into account early and with careful planning.

7. When You Retire

The timing of retirement has significant implications—not just for income, but for taxes as well. Once you begin drawing from your investments, the strategy behind distributions and withdrawals becomes central to your overall plan.

Retiring at 50 looks very different from retiring at 65 or 72, and each year in between can introduce unique considerations—especially for ultra high net worth individuals who may have more flexibility in choosing their retirement timeline.

A truly customized plan should offer strategic recommendations around retirement timing, helping align investment, income, and tax goals effectively.

8. How Much You Set Aside

Estate planning, charitable giving, foundations, and life insurance strategies all play a central role in shaping what happens to your wealth over the long term. For ultra-high net worth individuals, this isn’t optional—it’s an essential part of the financial planning process.

While large brokerage firms may offer general guidance, they typically refer clients to outside specialists for execution. Understanding how much to allocate toward these long-term priorities—and when to begin planning—requires coordination across legal, tax, and investment strategies.

A fully customized plan should address these elements holistically, not as separate conversations.

If you’re exploring what kind of wealth management approach best fits your needs, PillarWM Finder can help guide the way. Start comparing options, connecting with professionals, and building a strategy that supports your goals—on your terms.