I agree with the general point but not the specific. I think people are becoming more savvy over what it is that they’re paying for. Do I agree that 80-90% of those who use homebrew trackers and the like in their mid-20s are unlikely to want to do so regularly in their mid-40’s? Sure.
But those who would have done that in the first place, will know what it is they want to get out of what they’re paying for. They would happily pay for a service that does all that for them and once a month suggests how to invest any contribution they’re paying into their portfolio and flags any concerning situations. Would they, over-and-above that, then pay for the five minute job of executing?
For some the answer is yes. But my point is that the balance between involvement and cost is no longer a binary one. Which means that the traditional brokers, even if they retain their trading fees, need to ensure their offering is not binary if they are to compete, because if they take the overly-simplistic approach that the fees don’t need to change because of the quality of the current offering, revenues will decline. They need to expand their choice of offerings to suppliment it.