On Recruiting

How big wealth management firms should treat top-performing advisers to keep them happy

Those who excel should be paid better, allowed to thrive and grow, in an aspirational, transparent way that will be admired by peers, competitors, shareholders and regulators

Oct 10, 2016 @ 1:46 pm

By Danny Sarch

In past columns, I have been critical of the big firms' inability to treat their best performers differently. I have hypothesized that the primary reason why advisers depart the employee model of the big firms to go independent is not financial but because they desire to be free of onerous policies and procedures that do not distinguish the skilled veteran from the neophyte.

I received an email which asked: “Okay, Sarch. You are the King of Big Brokerage House Land. How would you treat your best people differently to keep them happy?”

Fair question. But first we need a better, more accurate way of defining who those top performers are.

(More: We need a new vocabulary in the wealth management industry)

Of course, in the wealth management industry, size matters. Advisers are compensated and recognized based on the amount of revenue they generate and their assets under management. For the 30 years I have been recruiting in this industry, these criteria have not changed. Productivity and growth will always matter, and should matter. However, I suggest we add the following:

Profitability: There are $2 million producers with one assistant and $2 million producers with four assistants. It's not advanced calculus to figure out which earns the company more money. Every big firm counts “non-compensable revenue” which translates to “revenue which we proudly collect from the adviser's clients but which we do not pay the adviser on.” If you do not actually pay your advisers on how profitable they are, at least recognize the best at running a practice like a business. Your branch managers are paid that way, so why not recognize and compensate the aggregate revenue generators that make up a branch that way?

Customer satisfaction: Every consumer-based business polls its clients periodically to determine how happy they are with the services provided. The wealth management industry is no different. More specifically, the industry meticulously tracks assets in and assets out for the firm, culled down to the specific adviser. A certain level of turnover in a given practice is unavoidable and inevitable. However, some practices are just better at keeping clients satisfied. And like every business, wealth management practices have to balance the number of staff hired to service and grow the business with the need to actually be profitable.

Investment performance: Every money manager tracks performance, as does every mutual fund. Every client asks about performance. Why not recognize the aggregate performance of a practice's accounts when compared to appropriate indices? More and more advisers are running portfolios themselves, with discretion. Cynical Sarch does not believe that they all consistently outperform the markets.

Compliance record: As I've written in the past, Finra BrokerCheck is far from perfect and needs to reflect true malfeasance instead of mere accusations and decades old misdemeanors. That said, it is an accomplishment to have a clean record over a long period of time. These advisers are proud of their record and should be recognized and compensated for it. In addition, firms have coddled and protected big producers with poor compliance records for far too long.

Big firms have the capabilities to measure all of the criteria I describe. Do they have the will to pay a $1 million producer who checks all the other boxes more than the $1.5 million producer who does not? Those who excel in all categories should be paid better, allowed to thrive and grow, in an aspirational, transparent way that will be admired by peers, competitors, shareholders, and yes, even regulators. At the intersection of production, profitability, client satisfaction, investment performance and clean compliance are the true stars in the industry.

Perhaps big firms will trust these advisers with the ability to price their business the way that they want without penalties. Perhaps they will trust these advisers to talk with the press. And then perhaps the big firms will be able to slow the diaspora to independence and avoid becoming the proverbial frog in the boiling water, not recognizing the threat until it is too late.

Danny Sarch is the founder and owner of Leitner Sarch Consultants, a wealth management recruiting firm based in White Plains, N.Y.

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Sponsored financial news

Advisers on the Move

Upcoming Event

Mar 13

Conference

WOMEN to WATCH

InvestmentNews is honoring female financial advisers and industry executives who are distinguished leaders at their firms. These women have advanced the business of providing advice through their passion, creativity, inclusive approach and... Learn more

Featured video

INTV

Advisers beware: tax law has unintended consequences

Commission accounts could be preferable for some clients, and advisers could be incentivized to move from employee broker-dealers to independent channels.

Recommended Video

Path to growth

Latest news & opinion

Fidelity charging new fee on Vanguard assets held in 401(k) plans

The 0.05% fee is ostensibly a response to Vanguard's distribution model, but may also make the company's funds less attractive due to higher cost.

UBS adviser count continues to decline

Firm to merge U.S., global wealth management units on Feb. 1

TD Ameritrade launches all-night trading for ETFs

Twelve funds now can be traded after-hours, but the list will grow, company says.

Cutting through the red tape of adviser regulation is tricky

Don't expect a simple rollback of rules under the Trump administration in 2018 — instead, regulators are on pace to bolster financial adviser oversight.

Bond investors have more to worry about than a government shutdown

Inflation worries, international rates pushing Treasuries yields higher.

X

Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting investmentnews.com? It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist investmentnews.com

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print