Displaying items by tag: brokers

(New York)

Breaking away is a tense process for advisors. Not only is there the emotional “fear gap” about venturing into the unknown, but even considering the move is difficult. One of the major reasons why is that it is hard to know how much your comp might increase or what kind of deal you might get for moving. Advisors often ask themselves “what does my business need to look like in order to make a successful move?”. Well, here is some insight. Larger firms, say with $5m+ plus in revenue can easily afford to make the transition and hire all the consultants necessary to make a successful switch. However, the less known reality is that even solo advisors with between $50m to $100m in AUM can be very successful in moving. Payouts for such advisors can approach 80%, meaning those bringing in $500k of revenue can reasonably hope to keep $400k of it. As a rule of thumb, advisors’ take-home pay usually jumps 10-15 percentage points when breaking away from a wirehouse.

FINSUM: This is very useful information. We drew it from a number of sources, including Kitces.

(Atlanta)

Expectations of higher compensation and more “freedom” usually top the list of articles that discuss why advisors are breaking away from large brokers. However, there is more to it than that. An interesting piece in Financial Planning tells the story of a team breaking away from Merrill Lynch. In reality it is not just comp that is an issue, and it s rarely the sole reason for breaking away. Often times it has to do with institutional limitations, like corporate bureaucracy, a bad branch manager, or small clients getting funneled to call centers. Other times it is because advisors are offering tons of service, like tax planning, cash flow management, loan refinancing etc that they just don’t get paid for.

FINSUM: This is a good piece that goes deeper than usual in exploring the real reasons advisors leave and whether doing so is a good idea.

(New York)

Here is an eye-opening stat for anyone working in wealth management: 37% of all advisors expect to retire in the next decade. That will put about 39% of all AUM in the industry in motion. The biggest surge in retirement will be on the B-D side of the fence. The major question is who will replace all these advisors? “While some progress is being made, the industry is struggling to recruit and retain advisor talent that is adequately prepared to inherit the businesses … In an effort to overcome this challenge, firms are boosting recruiting efforts to bring new advisors into the industry and revamping training efforts to improve success rates”, says Cerulli Associates.

FINSUM: Succession panning has not been very good in general, so there are big questions about how this will play out. This is either one of the best opportunities in the history of the business, or the whole market might shrink naturally if older advisors retire and Millennials don’t hire new ones.

(New York)

One of the ways that wirehouses have been trying to make their brokers (and their brokers’ clients) more sticky is by pushing loans. Brokers are encouraged to get clients to borrow money. These loans have the effect of binding clients to firms for long periods, and correspondingly, it makes it harder for brokers to breakaway because clients are more likely to stay put. However, some RIAs are combatting the trend by offering to replace client loans during the transition period when brokers are joining their firms. Perhaps even more interestingly, custodians are getting into the game too, with Schwab announcing recently that they would be increasing lending products available to advisors to help them transition clients away from wirehouses. The loans provided often have lower interest rates than what the wires offer, so the success rate in migrating clients has been quite high.

FINSUM: The loan game has been the domain of the wirehouses for years, but with the big custodians getting involved, this is another important structure that will make breaking away easier.

(New York)

One of the biggest changes in the advisor-oriented ETF market in recent years has been the sharp rise in broker-owned ETFs, such as those from Schwab and Fidelity. Both have jumped to be major players in the ETF market thanks to their ability to sell these funds on their own platforms. One of the important things advisors need to understand is that a lot of new funds are seeded by the provider itself. Some ETFs have hundreds of millions put into them by their sponsors, which means they are not as liquid, or in-demand as they appear. Hartford and John Hancock are examples of this approach.

FINSUM: Brokers deposit huge sums in new ETFs to make them look established and in-demand. The best way to actually double-check that AUM figures are representative of reality is to look at the volume of shares traded, which is much less likely to be misleading and gives a true picture of liquidity.