Minimums and caps: what a published advice percentage can leave out

In Advisedly's selected 50-firm fee dataset, 15 records contain a numerical lower charge bound attached to at least one percentage-linked ongoing service. Eight contain a numerical upper bound. Four appear in both groups, so 19 distinct records contain at least one of these features.

These findings help explain why a headline percentage is sometimes insufficient to estimate an advice bill. They do not show which firm is cheapest or establish how often minimums and caps occur across the UK market.

We analysed the records on 18 September 2026 using the existing public-page snapshot checked on 14–15 September. This is a new analysis of that snapshot, not a new verification of every firm's current terms. The main fee comparison contains the recorded service descriptions and original source links.

What we counted

The starting dataset contains 50 firm/service entries. Thirty-nine describe a percentage-based service, a choice including a percentage service, or combined fixed and percentage elements. Those 39 form the subset in which we assessed percentage-linked numerical bounds.

We counted an explicit minimum, maximum or paired cash range attached to at least one relevant service. We excluded pure fixed starting prices, separate fixed-fee options, portfolio entry requirements and conditions determining whether a service is available. Each firm/service entry is counted once per flag, even where it lists several service levels.

The row-level coding file preserves every recorded description, the flags and notes on boundary cases. The method and counts identify the exact source snapshot. This makes the interpretation open to checking without pretending that all services have been standardised into equivalent quotations.

The results

Feature in the recorded percentage-linked service	Entries
Numerical lower charge bound	15
Numerical upper charge bound	8
Both lower and upper bounds	4
At least one bound	19
Percentage-linked entries assessed	39

The first two rows overlap. Adding 15 and 8 would double-count four entries. The remaining records should not be labelled as firms without minimums or caps: the analysis is limited to the reviewed material and the defined subset.

Cash ranges paired with percentages require interpretation. For Christina Clegg's Bronze and Silver services and the Money Clinic's listed services, we treated the stated ranges as lower and upper bounds. The individually priced Gold maximum in the Christina Clegg record was not treated as a numerical cap. These decisions are recorded so readers can see exactly what supports the count.

A minimum can change the effective percentage

The Britannic Place snapshot lists a 1% first marginal band and a £5,000 annual minimum. Applying only those recorded elements to a hypothetical £250,000 balance produces a £2,500 percentage calculation, which sits below the minimum. The resulting adviser charge would be £5,000 under those assumptions, equivalent to 2% of that balance.

At £500,000, 1% and the £5,000 minimum coincide. At £750,000, the same first-band percentage produces £7,500. The published 1% has not changed; the minimum affects the lower balance differently.

This is an explanation of the recorded tariff mechanics, not confirmation that the firm would accept these hypothetical cases or offer identical work. It excludes investment costs, any applicable tax treatment and other agreed charges. A personal quote must establish both service eligibility and the amount payable.

A service threshold is a different finding

Old Mill's recorded terms say its Wealth Management service is available where the annual fee exceeds £3,000. We did not convert that condition into a £3,000 charge for every smaller portfolio. The text concerns availability and does not establish that such a portfolio is accepted at a minimum price.

Similarly, Chadwicks' portfolio threshold and separate fixed-fee option were not coded as a minimum automatically applied to its percentage service. This distinction matters to readers: “the service may not be available” and “the service is available at a higher effective percentage” are different answers.

The research therefore avoids a simple search for words such as minimum or starts. Those words can describe different features whose financial effects are not interchangeable.

The unit of a cap matters

Paramount's recorded ongoing cap is £7,500 per product. It is not automatically a £7,500 limit across every account a client holds. Under a hypothetical arrangement with two products each reaching that cap, the combined capped adviser charges would total £15,000 before other costs.

Other records show annual limits linked to service levels or charges subject to inflation adjustments. Betterment Wealth's recorded cap, for example, includes an RPI-linked annual adjustment. A cap copied from an old article should not be assumed to remain the current monetary limit indefinitely.

A complete comparison needs the amount, the unit it applies to, included work and adjustment terms. Counting the existence of a cap is useful; treating all caps as equivalent protection from all investment costs is not.

What the analysis cannot tell us

The sample was assembled from accessible public disclosures and is not a random or representative survey. It cannot establish a national average, the prevalence of these practices in all advice firms or what any reader would be quoted.

The records also contain different service scopes. Some distinguish accumulation, retirement or more complex work. An entry with several bounds does not represent several separate firms, and its lowest-priced service may not meet the reader's needs.

Absence from the coding is not a criticism of a firm's compliance or transparency. A limit may appear elsewhere, be agreed individually or be irrelevant to the type of service described. We are reporting what can be supported by this particular snapshot.

How to use the findings when requesting a quote

Ask the firm to apply its complete schedule to the assets and service being discussed, showing percentages, minimums, caps and additional costs in pounds. Confirm whether any limit applies per person, household, account, product or service, and when the figures can change.

The useful comparison is the cost of the agreed work under the actual terms. These findings show why retaining the conditions around a percentage is essential to making that comparison understandable.

For practical explanations alongside the research, see minimum adviser fees and percentage fee tiers.