Sarsi

Sarsi

Sarsi launched in 2010 with a clear, narrow charter: serve busy professionals, business owners diversifying concentrated equity, and retirees who need a single point of coordination across investment management, tax planning, estate strategy, and non-cash compensation analysis. The firm was built from the start as a fiduciary — paid only by clients, never by product providers — and that structure remains the centerpiece of its identity. Portfolios are custom-built for each client and executed through a well-defined process that blends proprietary research with external manager diligence. Sarsi draws on direct meetings with traditional and alternative investment managers, supplemented by research reports and periodicals, to assemble allocations. Asset classes span public equities, fixed income, and alternatives, though the firm does not disclose specific portfolio companies or named holdings. Charles Schwab serves as custodian, holding client assets in accounts that clients themselves control while Sarsi retains trading authorization. The firm’s geographic reach is intentionally lean — headquartered in West New York, New Jersey, with a footprint concentrated in the New York metro area — but it serves clients nationally through a virtual operating model. Sarsi’s scale is deliberately boutique. It imposes a $5,000 minimum annual fee per client and charges asset-based fees that scale down from 1% depending on household size; fixed-fee comprehensive plans are priced by complexity. The firm has not disclosed a named investment committee, a partnership roster, or adjacent vehicles such as philanthropic foundations. It offers outsourced CIO consulting for what it terms “relatively large investors,” suggesting a capability set that stretches beyond traditional retail advisory but without the institutional reporting architecture expected of a multi-family office. Where Sarsi structurally differs from most RIAs is its single-point-of-contact model. Every client relationship runs through one advisor, with the firm arguing this architecture limits breach-of-confidence risk and sharpens accountability. There is a trade-off: the model constrains scale and makes continuity vulnerable to key-person risk. For a high-touch practice built on complexity navigation, it is a deliberate wager that depth of relationship matters more than institutional redundancy.