The Quandry of Wealth Managers... 'competition and cost'

"banking products all corporations can give you the same (current account, TD, funds....etc), so services of wealth management is the difference that can allow you to compete in this market. What kind of services, not only pure market services as portfolio management but also other complementary as legal advise, inheritance planning ( an execution with lawyers....etc)"

As you know I'm all for transparency of charges and justifying how they are charged. The idea of setting universal standards for wealth services has its appeal.

The problem: 'Commoditising' and hence price competing ancillary wealth services is that they increase operating costs and on simple economies of scale this would favour the larger firms over the smaller wealth managers/advisers. Why?
Simple economics: However; generally speaking, the larger the wealth manager then the more akin to a DAM it becomes and I think the personal connection becomes diluted. Until that can be addressed then I am wary of making anything other than KYC and investment acumen the root of a wealth offering. It needs to be a fair and level playing field: at which point setting universal standards and costs for services makes great sense. We need to keep competion open and for many smaller firms that means sub-contracting legal and tax professionals if they are unable to keep up, in-house.
 
Overall the charges for wealth management must be justified, right across the offering, as great ancillary services can't mask sloppy portfolio management and visa versa. Intuitively - bundling feels wrong to me.