Digijanus: Vantage Point · Episode 001 · Disrupting Wealth Management
How are digital wealth platforms disrupting traditional banks in Asia? Digital wealth platforms are disrupting traditional banks across Asia by attacking the three things that decide whether an individual succeeds at building wealth: advice, access, and cost. Where banks have historically distributed investment products and taken one to three percent of a customer's savings every year, independent digital platforms are moving to a fee-only model, refunding trailer fees, retrocessions and commissions and being paid only by the client they serve. That structural alignment removes the conflict of interest at the heart of bank-distributed wealth. Platforms also widen access by building technology that connects directly to systems banks left untouched, such as Singapore's CPF and SRS public pension savings, and by giving individuals institutional frameworks of investing previously reserved for sovereign wealth funds and the very wealthy. The disruption is not primarily technological but structural: incumbents face enormous inertia because reforming their fee model means cannibalising a high-margin business, so the opening is created by the project the incumbent's own economics forbid it to build. Why do banks charge one to three percent on wealth and is that changing? Banks charge one to three percent annually on wealth because the business of distributing investment products is highly profitable and has long operated with little competition and little obligation to deliver genuine advice in return. Customers stayed not out of loyalty but because credible alternatives did not exist, and banks describe this as owning the customer. The fees take many forms, including trailer fees, retrocessions and commissions, and are deducted from a customer's savings every year regardless of performance or service. This is changing for two reasons. First, independent digital wealth platforms are competing directly on cost, refunding these fees and being paid only by the client, which exposes how much value was being extracted for how little service. Second, regulation is removing commissions entirely in developed markets such as the United States, Europe and Australia, where paying for the distribution of financial products is being legislated away. As financial literacy rises, the expectation is that fee structures across Asia will eventually have to follow. What is fee-only investing and why does it matter? Fee-only investing means a provider is paid solely by the client it serves and keeps none of the commissions, trailer fees, retrocessions or kickbacks that product manufacturers typically pay to distributors. It matters because it is an alignment test rather than merely a pricing choice. The moment an advisor or platform retains payments from third parties, its incentives diverge from the client's, because it is rewarded for selling particular products rather than for improving the client's outcome. A fee-only structure refunds those payments to the customer and leaves the provider answerable only to the person whose money is being managed, which is the precondition for genuinely independent and unbiased advice. For an individual evaluating a wealth provider, the practical screen is to ask who else pays the advisor: if anyone other than the client is paying, the advice cannot be fully aligned. Fee-only is increasingly seen as best practice and is the direction global regulation is pushing the industry, away from commission-driven distribution and toward consumer protection. Can big tech succeed in wealth management? Big technology platforms have the infrastructure, reach and capital to enter financial services, and they are attracted to finance because it is a large adjacent vertical in the customer's life. They have already moved into payments, wallets, lending and buy-now-pay-later, which are the easier parts of commercial banking to disrupt. Wealth management is different. It is a regulated, licensed, professional industry with real barriers to entry, high operating costs and deep complexity in the middle and back office, compliance and regulatory frameworks that practitioners describe as the pipes. Succeeding requires being both deep-tech and deep-fin, and most big tech entrants have the first without the second. To date no big technology company has built a meaningful wealth franchise beyond payments and wallets, even in markets with money-market funds and deposit-like products, because the sophisticated wealth problem depends on trust, licensing and specialised expertise that take years to acquire. Big tech could succeed, but only by investing very heavily over a very long period rather than treating wealth like an e-commerce or delivery platform. How will commission bans reshape wealth management in Singapore and Asia? Commission bans are already law in developed markets including the United States, Europe and Australia, where paying for the distribution of financial products has been progressively removed in the name of consumer protection. The expectation is that Asia, including Singapore, will eventually move in the same direction because protecting the best interest of the consumer is what is right for society and because supply-side competition from independent platforms is already pressuring the old model. The reshaping happens on two fronts. On the supply side, challengers refund trailer fees and compete on cost, eroding the high-margin distribution business banks rely on. On the demand side, rising financial literacy changes the question customers ask, from why would I leave my bank to why did I ever use a bank for wealth, given that banks tend to push product rather than provide advice. The practical implication for any wealth provider is to build for the fee structure regulation will eventually require, centred on transparency and alignment, rather than the commission-driven structure that is profitable today. What is the right way to build a wealthtech startup in a regulated market? Building a wealthtech business in a regulated market requires combining deep financial expertise with technology, because the hardest parts are not the user interface but the regulated infrastructure: licensing, compliance, and the middle and back office. A defining example is building purpose-built technology for systems incumbents left untouched, such as Singapore's CPF public pension investing, which previously took two weeks to open an account and was entirely offline; reducing that to a five-minute experience required around two years and millions of dollars of in-house engineering with no guarantee of regulatory approval. Only a startup tends to accept that risk-reward, because incumbents with the resources to build it are deterred by the threat to their existing high-margin business. The other decisive factor is people. Startups cannot match the salaries, titles and brand of large institutions, so they must recruit individuals who believe in the mission and give them ownership of the business, which in turn produces very low senior attrition and a compounding advantage as valuation and validation rise.
Vantage Point · Episode 001

Disrupting Wealth Managementwith Samuel Rhee, Co-Founder & Chairman of Endowus

Episode Summary

For decades the business of managing other people's money has run on a quiet arrangement: a one-to-three percent annual cut, taken without fanfare and often without advice to match. Samuel Rhee built Endowus to break it. From the chair of Asia's largest independent digital wealth platform, he argues the incumbent model is not merely expensive but structurally misaligned with the very people it claims to serve.

In this Vantage Point conversation, Rhee lays out the three pillars he believes decide whether individuals succeed at building wealth — advice, access, and cost — and explains why the banks that own their customers may own them only by default. The discussion runs from Singapore's CPF and SRS systems to the regulatory reckoning already reshaping fees across the US, Europe, and Australia.

“Banks should be banned from wealth management”

The Conversation

← swipe to read each chapter →
Chapter 01 · The Model

Why You Should Never Pay to Be Sold To

Laksh

When I hear the word Endowus, it has a huge fan following — I'm a customer, I know customers, it's created a real buzz. So my first question: what are you and Endowus doing differently?

Samuel Rhee

People resonate with the mission because we solve a pain point that is very real — one we've all felt trying to save and invest in Singapore and across Asia. Paying too much in fees. Not getting access to products we know exist. Not receiving advice that actually helps. Many people feel they don't have the tools, information or education to make decisions that build wealth and prepare for retirement, which is the biggest generational challenge we face. Endowus exists to raise the individual's chances of success.

Samuel Rhee

We're direct-to-consumer, not B2B, so we go head-on. The three pillars of success in wealth are advice, access, and cost. We're fee-only, because that's where the world is headed — no commissions, kickbacks, retrocession or trailer fees. We keep none of it; we give it all back to the customer. We only want to be paid by the client we serve, so we're always aligned to their best interest. We're independent, we invest like a sovereign wealth fund, and we're holistic — the first digital advisor to span private wealth and public pension savings, CPF and SRS, in a single app.

Chapter 02 · The Incumbent

The Bank That Could Build This Won't

Laksh

There are so many banks out there. Why aren't they doing the Endowus model — refunding trailer fees, working on access, cost, and platform?

Samuel Rhee

I can't speak for them, but the common answer — and I think it's the right one — is that they're incumbents. They own the client and a highly profitable business, so they'd have to start by cannibalising themselves. There's enormous inertia against changing what works. Their digital and strategy people come to us because Endowus is interesting and different, and they want to learn and explore partnering.

Samuel Rhee

The most obvious example is CPF. We're the first and only digital advisor for CPF approved by the CPF Board. No one had built a purpose-built tech stack for CPF investing — it was completely offline and took two weeks just to open an account. We made it a five-minute experience. We spent two years and millions of dollars building it in-house, with no guarantee of approval. Only a startup takes that risk. DBS — the biggest bank, with the people, money, technology and accounts, and a CPF agent bank — still has no end-to-end CPF investing stack. That's crazy to me, but it's the opportunity for a company like Endowus.

Chapter 03 · Building

You Can't Hire the People Who Already Believe

Laksh

We often hear it's a great time to be a fintech — access to money, technology, resources. But what challenges did Endowus face precisely because it wasn't a financial institution?

Samuel Rhee

Many. When you're a pioneer you experience things no one has before. The biggest was acquiring high-quality talent. Banks with big brands can offer high salaries, fancy titles and a recognisable business card, and young people go for that. But we found people early who believed in the mission — and that's the most important thing. We've lost virtually no one in senior leadership across this four-, five-year journey.

Samuel Rhee

They're all owners of the business — that's the difference from working for a big institution. We control our own destiny. As the company grows, the valuation rises, people see the validation, and now we're around 100 people with very high-quality candidates applying. In the end, financial services is about people — the ones executing and providing the service.

Chapter 04 · The Myth

Nobody Actually Owns the Customer

Laksh

You said banks own the customer. If a bank tomorrow offered an Endowus-like platform — refunding trailer fees, charging only a small platform fee — why would customers stick with Endowus rather than the bank they already use?

Samuel Rhee

It's the phrase banks love, but they don't actually own customers — they were there because there were no alternatives. Now there are. The real question is: why would you stay with a bank? You bank for lending, credit cards, mortgages and deposits, but wealth is a specialised service. There's deep mistrust in banking when it comes to wealth, built over a long time of broken experiences, and that's the pain point Endowus solves.

Samuel Rhee

Would a big bank launch the identical service? Unlikely — it means going from a very fat-margin business to near zero. They take one to three percent of someone's savings every year for doing virtually nothing. That doesn't happen in any other distribution business. They'll have to change eventually, either because challengers are disrupting them or because regulation is removing commissions, as it already has in the US, Europe and Australia. Some are already copying us — there's even a bank that named its wealth service something close to ours. We don't have a trademark on it, and honestly, if they're copying us doing the right thing — removing trailer fees, giving people institutional frameworks — that's a good thing. That should be best practice.

Chapter 05 · Big Tech

Deep Tech Isn't Enough — You Need Deep Fin

Laksh

Big tech has been the engine behind a lot of startup success — their infrastructure lets you get started easily. But they're increasingly offering financial services too. How do you view big tech as both your enabling infrastructure and a potential competitor?

Samuel Rhee

I knew you were coming for me with that one. It's exciting — big tech has disrupted our lives in a positive way. They're looking at finance because fintech is hot and they want to own another vertical of the customer's life. But people forget that financial services is a regulated, licensed, professional industry, with real barriers to entry and a high cost to operate. People jump in too easily. The easier things to disrupt are commercial banking — payments, lending, buy-now-pay-later.

Samuel Rhee

When I left Morgan Stanley, I saw two areas with very little technology and huge opportunity because they were still relationship-driven: wealth, and capital markets. To succeed you need to be both deep-tech and deep-fin — you have to know the pipes, the middle and back office, the regulatory frameworks. It's far more complicated than an e-commerce or delivery platform. I've yet to see big tech succeed meaningfully in wealth. Many have tried payments and wallets, but beyond that, not much — even in China, the sophisticated wealth problem isn't solved, because of trust, licensing and the need for deep expertise.

Chapter 06 · The Fix

One Day You'll Ask Why You Ever Went to a Bank

Laksh

Before we let you go — one thing you'd love to change about wealth management today?

Samuel Rhee

I'll joke first: banks should be banned from providing wealth services. I'm kidding — that's never going to happen. But here's why I say it. We entrust banks, private banks and advisors with our life savings. The thing that frustrates me most is that in Singapore the term financial advisor has been hijacked by insurance agents. Banks should give financial advice, but they push product instead. We trusted them to help us build wealth, and they haven't delivered.

Samuel Rhee

My real proposition isn't regulation banning them. It's that with better financial literacy, in five, ten, fifteen years, people will naturally ask: why did I ever go to a bank for wealth? I'll go to a digital wealth platform — they're better, cheaper, on my side. And fee structures will have to change. There's a global sea change in regulation toward protecting the consumer, and Asia has to wake up and move toward it. Ripping people off through high fees to distribute and sell products is the wrong way. That's what's right for society — so we get there together.

Key Insights

01

Fee-only is an alignment test, not a pricing choice

If a provider keeps trailer fees, retrocessions or commissions, its incentives diverge from yours the moment you invest. Refunding them is the only structure where the advisor is paid solely by the client. Use it as a screen: ask who else pays your advisor.

02

Incumbent inertia is structural, not technical

Banks have the engineers, capital and licences; DBS, a CPF agent bank, still lacks an end-to-end CPF-investing stack. They don't build it because it cannibalises a high-margin business that runs on little effort. The opening for challengers is the project the incumbent's economics forbid.

03

Wealth is a specialised service, not a banking add-on

People bank for lending, cards and deposits; they stayed with banks for wealth only because nothing better existed. Once a credible alternative appears, owning the customer collapses — distribution was never loyalty.

04

Big tech lacks the moat that matters: deep-fin

Platforms supply infrastructure and reach, but wealth runs on regulated pipes — licensing, middle and back office, compliance — that take years to master. That's why no big-tech entrant has built a meaningful wealth franchise beyond payments and wallets.

05

The fee reckoning is coming to Asia

Commission bans are already law in the US, Europe and Australia. As literacy rises, the question flips from why leave the bank to why did I ever use one for wealth. Build for the fee structure regulation will require, not the one that's profitable today.

Laksh Gangwani

Laksh Gangwani

Founder, Digijanus

Host

Laksh Gangwani is Founder of Digijanus and a C-level executive at a global financial institution. He has driven market expansion across Singapore, Australia, Thailand, Dubai, and India. Recognised as WealthBriefing Asia's Leading Individual in 2021, he brings two decades of capital markets and wealthtech expertise across the Asia-Pacific region. Digijanus reaches over 80,000 followers and growing.

Samuel Rhee

Samuel Rhee

Co-Founder & Chairman, Endowus

Guest

Sam is Co-Founder and Chairman of Endowus, the largest independent digital wealth platform in Asia and the first digital advisor for Singapore's CPF and SRS, spanning personal savings, private wealth and public pension. A fintech investor and entrepreneur, he is focused on using technology to solve problems such as retirement adequacy and the global pension crisis. He serves on the World Economic Forum's Longevity Economy Steering Committee and is an Independent Board Member of Naver Corp. He was formerly CEO and Chief Investment Officer at Morgan Stanley Investment Management in Asia, with over three decades across London, Hong Kong and Singapore.