At a glance
- A custodian profile series by the publication's chief correspondent, Tobias Salinger, compares the larger players with smaller competitors on pricing, technology, service and access to new clients, and for firms that do clear the $100 million bar the same series profiles Fidelity itself, including a fee structure the publication describes as confidential.
- Wealth Advisor Daily reported last week that Fidelity had confirmed the letters, that no fee option exists to stay, and that the alternatives advisors had named carry conditions of their own; Michael Kitces, in that coverage, called the hard line bizarre and noted that earlier minimum increases had let small firms pay to remain.
- Custody terms are usually negotiated one firm at a time, which is what makes a stated $100 million floor unusual: it tells every RIA below the line how the relationship was being priced and hands those firms a reason to reprice the whole arrangement rather than argue over a line item.
RIAs with less than $100 million on Fidelity's custody platform have until June 30, 2027 to find another home, and Dan Shaw's survey of their alternatives in Financial Planning runs from arrangements that would keep a firm at Fidelity to the more difficult work of starting a custodial relationship from scratch.
For firms rebuilding, the coverage names Schwab and BNY Pershing among the familiar choices, alongside smaller custodians trying to win business upstream; LPL Financial, Raymond James, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo also provide custody or clearing to RIAs, though Financial Planning notes those relationships often arrive through broader affiliations rather than the standalone RIA custody model. A custodian profile series by the publication's chief correspondent, Tobias Salinger, compares the larger players with smaller competitors on pricing, technology, service and access to new clients, and for firms that do clear the $100 million bar the same series profiles Fidelity itself, including a fee structure the publication describes as confidential.
Wealth Advisor Daily reported last week that Fidelity had confirmed the letters, that no fee option exists to stay, and that the alternatives advisors had named carry conditions of their own; Michael Kitces, in that coverage, called the hard line bizarre and noted that earlier minimum increases had let small firms pay to remain. Financial Planning says the deadline pressure will build as June 2027 approaches, while the creative arrangements that would keep a firm at Fidelity remain the one part of the menu its account leaves without detail.
A published minimum, in a relationship priced in private
Custody terms are usually negotiated one firm at a time, which is what makes a stated $100 million floor unusual: it tells every RIA below the line how the relationship was being priced and hands those firms a reason to reprice the whole arrangement rather than argue over a line item. Custody stopped being neutral machinery some time ago, with shelves, sweeps and referral terms competing for the client, and an asset minimum is that same logic applied at the front door.
Smaller custodians now hold the decision. If they hold the pricing they quote today, the floor becomes their recruiting pitch and a deadline set by one custodian turns into a referral engine for its competitors; if they shade terms to capture a wave of small books, the deadline mostly relocates the problem to the next custodian's balance sheet. Either way, the firms beneath the line are shopping with less than nine months of runway, and the answer they reach will decide which custodian's technology, service and pricing hold the next decade of their clients' accounts.
Reported by the Recruiting & transitions desk from Financial Planning, Wealth Advisor Daily archive and Wealth Advisor Daily archive. Published . Corrections