How Successful Wealth Builders Rate Professional Services: 2025 Benchmark Data
Listen to This Episode On
In this episode, Long Angle co-founders Tad Fallows, Sriram Gollapalli, and Matt Shechtman discuss the findings from Long Angle's first-ever Professional Services Benchmarking Survey.
This survey collected data from 6,000+ accomplished individuals with substantial assets—typically in their 30s, 40s, and early 50s with net worths ranging from $5M to $200M+—to create a consistent benchmark on what people are actually spending across financial services, personal services, and family-related services.
In this conversation, the hosts dive into the most surprising findings: why nearly 20% of high-net-worth individuals don't use a CPA, why 42% are considering switching accountants, what drives the massive satisfaction gap between personal trainers (9.3/10) and personal assistants (6.7/10), and why 30% of ultra-high-net-worth individuals still don't work with a trust and estate attorney. They also explore the messy state of wealth management pricing, the hidden complexity of finding good service providers, and what might fill the gap between DIY financial management and full family office services.
We also went deep on: the opaque nature of CPA pricing and billing, why fee-only wealth advisors struggle to scale, whether AI will replace tax professionals, the challenge of finding quality personal trainers and assistants, and what types of service models might emerge to serve the "in-between" wealth segment.
Key Ideas from This Episode
Host Snapshot
Hosts: Tad Fallows, Sriram Gollapalli, Matt Shechtman
Roles: Co-founders of Long Angle
Current focus: Building a private, vetted community for successful wealth builders navigating complex financial and life decisions
Survey methodology: First annual Professional Services Benchmarking Survey collecting data from 6,000+ members on spending across financial, personal, and family services
The Surprising CPA Data
The episode opens with one of the most unexpected findings: nearly 20% of survey respondents don't use a CPA to file their taxes.
Tad found this particularly surprising given the complexity most people face once they accumulate substantial assets. His own tax return ran 500+ pages last year—and he doesn't consider himself exceptionally complex. Once you have investments filing in multiple states, a dozen K-1s from various partnerships, and multiple income sources, doing it yourself seems risky at best.
Matt's counterpoint: If you're a high-earning W-2 employee making $1-2M annually with straightforward option grants, TurboTax actually handles things pretty well these days. The CPA becomes almost a requirement once you start receiving Schedule C income or multiple K-1s from pass-through entities.
When did the hosts make the switch?
Matt: When they started taking on personal real estate investments and had businesses filing under their names
Sriram: When he started receiving K-1s from startup investments—though he notes some ultra-high-net-worth friends still use TurboTax because they only hold index funds and have straightforward returns
The CPA Dissatisfaction Problem
Perhaps even more striking: 42% of those using CPAs are considering switching.
The hosts identified several drivers of this dissatisfaction:
1. Opaque and Fragmented Pricing
Matt describes sitting with friends comparing notes: "My return was 400 pages and I paid $6,000." The friend responds: "Mine was only 200 pages and I paid $10,000."
The variance is massive:
Some CPAs charge per K-1 ($200 each)
Others have flat pricing regardless of K-1 count
There's no standardization or transparency
The "cost per page" rule of thumb: Tad mentions a loose metric of $10-15 per page that seems to hold relatively true. So a 500-page return might cost $5,000-7,500. But this feels arbitrary and unsatisfying as a pricing model.
Contrast with legal services: When comparing lawyer rates, people generally understand "$600/hour vs. $550/hour"—the variance feels reasonable. But CPA pricing lacks that clarity.
2. Unclear Service Scope
A major disconnect exists between what clients think they're buying and what CPAs think they're delivering.
Matt's observation: You can get tax advice from multiple sources:
Wealth managers (CFP/CFA)
Tax attorneys
CPAs
Many CPAs view their role as "taking inputs and making outputs"—pure tax preparation, not strategic tax planning.
But clients often expect their CPA to proactively suggest strategies: showing them tax credits, identifying optimization opportunities, and thinking ahead about their situation.
The solution: Matt suggests that if clients explicitly asked upfront—"I also want you to give me tax strategies and show me all possible benefits"—many CPAs would clarify: "We don't do that at all."
Setting expectations properly would reduce a lot of the dissatisfaction.
3. The "Shooting the Messenger" Problem
Tad's hypothesis: Many people are unhappy with the amount of tax they're paying—and they direct that frustration at their CPA.
They hear about friends "not actually paying the marginal rate" through various strategies, so they assume their CPA must be doing something wrong.
Reality check: Most high-earners with W-2 income or straightforward investment portfolios don't have access to the aggressive tax strategies they imagine others are using.
Exception: Real estate investors genuinely do have a different tax regime with depreciation, 1031 exchanges, and various benefits. But for most others, the dramatic tax reduction strategies either don't apply or sit far along the risk spectrum (conservation easements, aggressive charitable deductions, etc.).
4. AI Disruption on the Horizon
Matt predicts: "We're probably moving towards larger and larger blocks not using a CPA."
Within a few years, he expects AI-powered tax bots where you plug in all your documents and a high-quality 1040 comes out—possibly better than many CPAs produce today.
His conclusion: "I don't know that I would want to be in the CPA industry right now."
The dissatisfaction is high, the pricing is opaque, the service delivery is inconsistent, and technology is rapidly closing the gap on the technical work.
The Wealth Management Pricing Dilemma
Most Long Angle members don't work with wealth managers—roughly 70% prefer to self-manage their investments. But for the 30% who do use wealth managers, the survey revealed an interesting split:
About 50% use AUM-based pricing
About 50% use alternative fee structures (hourly, fixed fee, retainer-based)
This surprised Tad because when he talks with wealth managers, he finds many clients who want non-AUM pricing, but very few advisors willing to offer it.
Why AUM Pricing Dominates (Despite Client Frustration)
Matt's framework: It comes down to misaligned incentives on both sides.
Client perspective: "Why should I pay more just because I have more money? The work is the same whether I have $2M or $10M."
Advisor perspective: "Why should I get paid significantly less than my peers when I could serve higher-net-worth clients who are willing to pay AUM-based fees?"
The parallel to real estate brokers: Matt draws the comparison to realtors. Why does selling a $4M house cost more than a $2M house when the work is roughly the same?
Answer: "Collusion"—or more charitably, industry norms that are hard to break.
But there's a key difference: In real estate, you're somewhat boxed in. Buyers and sellers have limited ability to work around the broker system (though options like Redfin and Zillow are emerging).
In wealth management, you have total freedom. If you don't want to pay AUM fees, you can just manage everything yourself through Vanguard, Schwab, or Fidelity. No one stops you.
Tad's realization: This actually makes the wealth management market more fair than real estate.
The only people paying AUM fees are those who genuinely see value in the relationship. And if you're the best advisor and can only serve 20 clients, why wouldn't you choose the 20 who are willing to pay the most?
It's not exploitative—it's market dynamics working as they should.
The Fee-Only Alternative Model
Sriram's experience: After his first exit, he worked with a fee-only advisor who charged a flat $4,000-6,000 annually to help set up foundational strategies and think through unknown unknowns.
He's currently exploring another advisor who charges around $5,000/year as a "financial coach"—helping with investment policy statements, risk frameworks, and asset allocation strategies without executing trades.
The value proposition: For people with substantial assets but who want to remain hands-on with their investments, this model offers strategic guidance without the ongoing AUM drag.
The challenge: These advisors can serve more clients (since they're not managing day-to-day portfolios), but they're harder to find and the market for their services is less developed.
What Drives Satisfaction: The Family Office Model
Matt shares an insight from a conversation with someone who runs software for family offices and institutional allocators:
The most satisfied clients are those using family office services because:
They typically charge a flat annual fee (e.g., $100,000/year) rather than AUM-based
They provide a full suite of services (investment management, bill pay, tax coordination, estate planning, concierge services)
The fee is the same regardless of whether you have $100M or $200M—it's based on service cost, not asset size
The psychology: Clients know exactly what they're paying and what they're getting. It doesn't feel like they're being charged "just because they're rich."
The gap: This model works well for ultra-high-net-worth individuals ($100M+), but what about those in the $10M-50M range who want similar coordination without full family office costs?
Tad's observation: There might be an emerging role for a "general contractor" equivalent—someone who quarterbacks all your professional services without necessarily executing everything themselves. They help you find the right CPA, estate attorney, and investment advisors, then coordinate between them.
This could be a valuable service layer that doesn't exist yet at scale.
The Personal Services Satisfaction Gap
One of the most striking findings: Personal trainers and sports coaches had the highest satisfaction ratings (9.3/10), while personal assistants had among the lowest (6.7/10).
This seems counterintuitive—both are optional services that take work off your plate and should make life better.
Why Personal Trainers Score So High
Sriram's theory: The difference is likely in-person vs. virtual delivery.
Personal trainers and coaches are almost always in-person. You build rapport, they're physically present with you, and the relationship is tangible and personal.
Sriram's experience: He and his wife worked with an in-person trainer who came to their house twice a week for 9-10 weeks. It was fantastic—both for spending time together and for the actual training. They only stopped because he moved away, and they haven't been able to bring themselves to go through the search process again.
The accountability factor: Matt notes that for most people, the real value is accountability. If you're the type who needs that external push, a trainer is essential. If you're self-motivated (like Matt), you're more likely to just follow YouTube content and do it yourself.
Tad's experience: He recently helped his wife find a female personal trainer willing to come to their house after work hours. The search was surprisingly difficult—he ended up signing up for LinkedIn Professional and cold-DMing trainers at nearby Equinoxes and country clubs. He sent 100+ messages and got only 5 responses. They finally found someone great, but the process was inefficient.
The marketplace gap: There's no good "Care.com for personal trainers" where you can browse profiles, see reviews, and get quotes. The market remains surprisingly fragmented.
Why Personal Assistants Score So Low
Sriram's hypothesis: Most people are using virtual assistants (often offshore in the Philippines or Southeast Asia) rather than in-person help.
The average cost was $18,000/year—clearly not a full-time US employee, but not nothing either. This likely represents either a part-time US-based assistant or a full-time overseas assistant.
The churn problem: Sriram has heard many horror stories (and some positive stories) about virtual assistant services. The dissatisfaction likely stems from:
Lack of consistency (especially with agencies where the assistant changes)
Communication challenges (time zones, language barriers, cultural context)
Limited personal connection (harder to build trust remotely)
Why people struggle to use them effectively: Even those interested in hiring assistants often don't know what tasks to delegate or how to structure the relationship.
Sriram's example: He'd love someone to help with holiday card address collection in an "authentic personal manner"—but is that really something he'd outsource?
What Actually Works: The Executive Assistant Model
Tad's experience: His wife has a full-time EA at her job, and the value is undeniable. Two areas where it's been game-changing:
1. Medical system navigation
Getting follow-up appointments
Dealing with insurance denials (CVS declines a drug, doctor needs to write a letter explaining why alternatives won't work, follow-up coordination)
Most people just give up and pay out of pocket—but an EA persists through the bureaucracy
2. Kids' scheduling consolidation
Class parent emails
Principal emails
Band app notifications
Sports Engine updates
WhatsApp messages
It's impossible to keep track. The EA consolidates everything into a single calendar that actually works.
The challenge: These are high-value use cases, but they require someone who understands your family context deeply—which is hard to achieve with a part-time virtual assistant.
Matt's reality: He doesn't even attempt to track any of this because his wife (a stay-at-home parent) manages it all. He notes: "That's a full-time job managing the house."
The Estate Planning Gap
One of the more concerning findings: 30% of ultra-high-net-worth individuals ($25M+) don't work with a trust and estate attorney.
This surprised the hosts because:
The federal estate tax exemption is currently ~$13M per person (but set to drop to ~$7M in 2026)
Most UHNW individuals are under 50, meaning their estates will likely grow significantly by the time they pass
Estate planning becomes essential at these wealth levels
Why People Delay Estate Planning
Tad's hypothesis: It's a classic "not urgent" task.
You're 40 years old and feel healthy
Thinking about mortality is uncomfortable
It feels like something you can deal with "later"
The hidden complexity: Even when people want to do estate planning, finding the right attorney is difficult.
Sriram's experience: When they had their first child in Boston, they interviewed several estate attorneys for what they thought would be a simple plan. Years later, after moving to Maryland and having three kids, they realized they needed to update everything.
He interviewed four attorneys for a SLAT (Spousal Lifetime Access Trust), revocable trust updates, and refreshed wills and health proxies.
The price range: $9,000 to $35,000 for seemingly the same scope of work.
Hourly rates: $400 to $1,200/hour—massive variance.
He ultimately paid $16,000 and found the attorney through a Long Angle speaker referral (she was speaking on a different topic but mentioned her firm's estate practice).
The "life insurance trap": Two of the attorneys he interviewed immediately suggested life insurance mechanisms as part of the strategy—which felt like a red flag for conflicted incentives.
The Evaluation Problem
Tad's observation: Estate planning is one of those services where it's extremely difficult to evaluate quality both before and after the work is done.
Unlike a tax return (where you can at least compare line items) or investment management (where you can track performance), estate planning quality is nearly impossible to judge.
Sriram's point: "You may never know how good it was. In theory, when it's used, hopefully it worked out."
Tad's response: "Maybe you don't even care at that point."
This creates a market failure where:
Clients can't assess quality effectively
Pricing varies wildly without clear justification
Finding good attorneys requires insider networks and referrals
The Future of Professional Services
As the hosts wrap up, they discuss what might change in this landscape:
The "Quarterback" Role
Matt's observation: There's such variety in needs, services, and satisfaction levels—all of which are intertwined—that people need someone to engineer and quarterback all these professional relationships.
The family office model: This role exists for ultra-high-net-worth individuals through family offices.
The gap: For those with $10M-50M who aren't quite at family office level, they end up either:
Doing it themselves (and getting frustrated by the complexity)
Working with advisors who claim to do it but fall short
Tad's question: Is it economical to provide this "quarterback" service to people below family office wealth levels?
It's an interesting potential business model—similar to a general contractor for your house who doesn't lay floors or install windows but ensures all the pieces come together and knows the good vendors for each specialty.
The AI Disruption Factor
Matt's prediction: AI will increasingly handle pure execution tasks—especially in tax preparation and basic financial planning.
What survives: Services that require:
Deep personal context and trust
Complex judgment calls across multiple domains
Coordination between specialists
Accountability and relationship management
The test: Can the service be reduced to inputs and outputs? If so, AI will probably do it better and cheaper within a few years.
The Á La Carte vs. Bundled Services Question
Matt's uncertainty: He's unsure whether the future trends toward:
Option 1: Á la carte services
Everyone picks exactly what they need based on their situation, assembling their own team of specialists
Option 2: Complete bundled solutions
One provider handles everything in an integrated way (the family office model scaled down)
The reality: There's probably room for both, depending on:
Client sophistication and preference for control
Wealth level and complexity
Life stage and available time
Key Takeaways for Members
From Matt: The survey was reassuring for many people—seeing that others share their frustrations (with CPAs, with finding good services) and their choices (the 50/50 split on public vs. private school was particularly validating for parents wrestling with that decision).
From Sriram: It gave confidence in choices already made (like estate planning being "set and forget") and highlighted areas to reinvest in (finding a personal trainer again).
From Tad: Two action items:
Personal: Find a personal trainer after seeing the 9.3 satisfaction rating
For Long Angle: Conduct future surveys drilling down on wealth management services specifically—what services are included, what drives satisfaction, and potentially create a vendor selection framework or curated recommendations
Other Quotes Worth Sitting With
"My tax return was something like 500 pages last year, and I don't consider myself exceptionally complex. As soon as you get just a few investments filing in a dozen states and you get a dozen K-1s, it seems like an incredible amount of work to do that yourself." - Tad Fallows
"Why am I paying more for the same amount of work just because my house is worth $4 million instead of $2 million? The answer is, well, collusion. Nobody really loves that answer." - Matt Shechtman on AUM pricing
"You may never know how good it was. In theory, when it's used, it's like, okay, I hope it worked out." - Sriram Gollapalli on estate planning
"That's a full-time job managing the house." - Matt Shechtman on household management
"You need somebody who is going to engineer and quarterback all of these things, which are typically served for the ultra high net worth in a family office type setting. But for those that are not quite to that level, they end up doing it themselves." - Matt Shechtman on the need for service coordination
"At the end of the day, it's more about consistency and actually doing something. The question I think where people get most of the value is the accountability." - Matt Shechtman on personal training
