Not by looking at the number on its own. The cheapest option is not automatically the best, and the most expensive is not automatically worth more. A fair fee question connects the cost to scope, quality and what you actually need.
Start with clarity, because you cannot judge what you cannot see: the total expected cost, who receives it, how it changes, and what is included. Then move to value. Does this service solve a problem you genuinely have? Is the advice documented and reviewed? Are administration and communication reliable? Does the investment function add something distinct? Could something simpler meet the same need?
Value is partly personal, and that is fine. What it should not be is vague. “Access to an advisor” means very little until you attach expected response times, meeting frequency, and the decisions the advisor will actually help you with. Investment performance belongs in the same conversation, judged after costs, over a sensible period, against the strategy, and never offered as a promise.
Try this now
For each ongoing fee, finish this sentence: “I pay approximately R___ a year for ___.” Then add one piece of evidence you would expect to see, such as a review record, completed planning work or reliable administration. The blanks you cannot fill are the conversation.
Ask your advisor
- Which part of this service would disappear if I chose the lower-cost alternative?
- How will we judge whether the ongoing service is being delivered?
- Is there a simpler service level that fits my current needs?
The aim is an informed agreement about value, not a race to zero.