Are you a charitable organization? Join our verified registry →
The five largest wealth managers handle every dimension of a client's financial life except the one that 87% of clients say they care about.
The five largest wealth managers in the world, BlackRock, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and UBS, collectively manage tens of trillions in client assets. Their platforms offer portfolio management, trading, tax optimization, estate planning and retirement projections. Charitable giving, the thing that 87% of wealthy clients say they want help with (per the American Endowment Foundation's survey of high-net-worth investors broadly), is handled through a patchwork of workarounds.
This is not a criticism. It is a structural observation. The gap between what these firms offer for investments and what they offer for giving is wide, and the reasons for it are worth understanding.
Each of the major wealth managers has some form of charitable offering. None of them have embedded it into the core platform experience.
Goldman Sachs runs the GS Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund, one of the largest DAFs in the country, with roughly $3 billion in annual grants according to IRS filings. It is available only to Private Wealth clients. A Goldman client with $2 million in assets does not qualify.
Morgan Stanley offers the Global Impact Funding Trust (MS GIFT), a standard DAF with a $25,000 minimum initial contribution and a $250 minimum grant. It is a separate account alongside the client's brokerage, not a feature inside it.
JPMorgan takes a different approach. Its Charitable Giving Fund is administered by National Philanthropic Trust, an independent public charity that is not a JPMorgan affiliate. The bank provides access to the fund through its Private Bank, but the actual grant decisions and distributions are handled externally.
UBS operates DAF entities across multiple jurisdictions, including Switzerland, Singapore, the UK and Hong Kong. Its 2025 annual filing reports $961 million in donations received into these entities, up from $329 million the prior year.
BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager at over $11 trillion in AUM, does not offer a client-facing charitable giving product at all. Its BlackRock Charitable Fund, established in 2013, is for corporate philanthropy. Its advisor-facing content covers tax-smart giving strategies, but these are articles, not tools.
The American Endowment Foundation published a set of numbers that captures the problem precisely. 87% of wealthy clients say they want charitable planning advice from their advisor. 81% of advisors say they provide it. Only 6% of clients say they actually receive it. AEF calls this the widest service gap in wealth management.
The Philanthropic Initiative's 2026 study found a similar pattern. 88% of high-net-worth clients believe it is important to discuss philanthropy with their advisors. But what advisors think motivates their clients' giving persistently diverges from what clients actually say.
The gap is not about willingness. Advisors want to help. Clients want the help. The gap is about infrastructure. An advisor at a wirehouse has a Bloomberg terminal for equities, a planning tool for retirement, a CRM for client relationships, and nothing for charitable giving except a brochure about the firm's DAF program.
Donor-advised funds were designed for high-net-worth investors who want to separate the tax event from the grant decision. They work well for that purpose. But they have three structural limitations that prevent them from serving as a platform-wide giving solution.
First, minimums exclude most clients. Morgan Stanley's $25,000 threshold and Goldman's Private Wealth restriction mean that only a fraction of each firm's client base can participate. The client with $500,000 in managed assets who gives $200 a month to their local food bank has no tool for that inside the platform.
Second, DAFs are separate accounts. They sit alongside the client's brokerage or advisory account, not inside it. The giving does not appear in the client's main dashboard. The advisor does not see it in their CRM. The institution has no data on the transaction unless the client volunteers it.
Third, some firms outsource entirely. JPMorgan's arrangement with NPT means the charitable relationship belongs to a third party, not to JPMorgan. The client's giving data, grant history, and charitable preferences live outside the bank's systems.
Fidelity Charitable manages roughly $86 billion in DAF assets and granted $18.3 billion to charities in 2025. It has surpassed the Gates Foundation as the nation's largest grantmaker. This happened because Fidelity embedded giving into the same platform where clients already manage their money.
But even Fidelity's model is a DAF. It requires a separate account. It is a product for a subset of clients, not a feature of the platform itself.
Embedded giving is different. The client opens their banking or brokerage app, selects a charity from a verified directory, sets an amount or a rule, and the institution originates the transfer on its own rails. No separate account. No minimum contribution. No third-party custodian. The giving lives inside the same experience as checking a balance or reviewing a portfolio.
The institution retains the client relationship, earns fee-share revenue on every gift, gains an auditable record of client philanthropy for ESG reporting, and creates a touchpoint that deepens the relationship in a way that a quarterly statement cannot.
No major asset manager offers this today. The largest firms in wealth management have built platforms that handle every dimension of a client's financial life except the one that 87% of clients say they care about.
That gap will close. The question is whether it closes from the inside, with a large firm building its own infrastructure, or from the outside, with embedded giving infrastructure that any institution can integrate. The firms that move first will have a retention and differentiation advantage that compounds over time.
The firms that move first will have a retention and differentiation advantage that compounds over time. If your institution is evaluating this space, start a conversation.
Research and perspectives on embedded giving, delivered when we publish.
