I had a conversation recently with Kyle Campbell, SVP of Corporate Development at OneDigital. He’s also a Certified Valuation Analyst who has closed nearly 500 M&A transactions in the wealth management industry. He made a pretty direct argument during our interview: the historical rollup model is dead.

Most advisors build their firm's shortlist the same way they pick a restaurant. They go with what is familiar, what a friend recommended, and whatever showed up first when they started looking. That process works fine for dinner. It is a real problem for a seven-year note.

Here is how I actually do it.

I have been in this business long enough to watch the same mistakes happen repeatedly, and the one that bothers me most is not the advisor who made a bad decision. It is the advisor who made a bad decision because someone who was supposed to be helping them was actually helping themselves.

Let me walk through three situations from recent conversations. Names and details changed, but the situations are real.

Given everything I talk about on this page, I imagine that headline surprises some people, but intellectual honesty is the whole point of this, so here it is: LPL is still a genuinely good platform for a meaningful segment of advisors, and pretending otherwise would make one largely disingenuous.

The question was never whether LPL is good or bad. It's whether it fits and for whom.

Thirty years of building a book and the finish line at a drifting firm is "fine." That doesn't sound right to me.

The advisors I've worked with who landed at truly excellent RIAs or BDs didn't necessarily make better decisions about where to go. They made a better decision about when to start looking. That's it. That's the whole thing.

Most advisors who reach out to me about LPL are focused on one question: Should I make the move? It's a reasonable place to start, but in my experience, it's almost never the most important question. 

An advisor chooses a platform because it feels right, often because it’s small enough to get real attention. The pitch is a culture that’s relationship-driven with people who answer the phone actually knowing who you are. The culture matches the business they're trying to build.

Then something changes, usually an ownership event, a “strategic pivot”, or a new capital partner with different priorities. The platform starts to feel different, subtly at first, then less subtly. The advisor tells themselves it'll stabilize. Sometimes it does. Sometimes you just end up in the next chapter of the same story.

Optionality is free to create. It can be extremely expensive to procrastinate. Most advisors lose their optionality one reasonable decision at a time, over several years, and only notice the damage when they arrive at a crossroads and realize the roads are no longer there. Here are five decisions advisors regret most.

Successful transitions for advisors often depend on proactive planning rather than reactive measures. Understanding their own business metrics, employment terms, and long-term options can make a crucial difference. Early preparation ensures clarity and flexibility, enabling advisors to navigate changes confidently and with leverage.

Many advisors have heard the phrase that all firms are the same, but this is often not true. The industry has evolved, with many firms now offering reliable technology, dedicated service teams, and solid economics. Staying in a firm out of habit or misinformation can prevent you from discovering better options that may enhance your practice and client service.

The firm you joined and your current firm may differ significantly. As firms grow and acquire practices, early advisors may find themselves less personally connected to leadership, facing a larger, more institutional environment. Advisors should regularly evaluate their loyalty and understand their options, especially if the experience no longer aligns with their initial reasons for joining.

Loyalty versus satisfaction in the financial advisory industry: understanding the signs of advisor retention challenges and the impact of firm investments. Learn how advisors evaluate their experiences amidst firm spending on acquisitions and how retention offers reflect underlying issues. Discover key insights into advisor loyalty, technology reliability, and the importance of making informed decisions about staying or leaving.

I’ve been talking to high-producing LPL advisors who did not “come over for a deal.” These are lifers. Now many are asking: what else is out there? When a platform gets big enough, its incentives start to change, and it can begin competing with its own top advisors in acquisitions, seller optionality, and “drag” from service and technology fragmentation.

In an era when private equity deals and minority recapitalizations dominate RIA headlines, Ritholtz Wealth Management’s latest succession move deserves a close look. Ritholtz expanded ownership to 29 employees through internal share purchases, keeping the firm 100% employee-owned and independent. Succession does not have to be synonymous with exit. Succession can also be synonymous with endurance.

Capital changes incentives. And incentives shape outcomes.

When your RIA sells a minority stake, the impact usually isn’t immediate. It shows up over time, and it often shows up in ways that don’t match the internal messaging. If you want to understand what’s really happening, you have to follow the incentives.

After a capital event, leadership priorities tend to shift toward growth targets, acquisition activity, and clearer pathways to liquidity. That can mean more centralized decision making, more reporting, faster strategic initiatives, new technology adoption, and the push for a “streamlined back office.”

None of that is automatically bad. But it does change the feel of the firm. Autonomy rarely disappears overnight. It erodes incrementally.

If you’re seeing signs like a new focus on enterprise value, increased reporting, compensation tweaks that reward consolidation, or more talk of recapitalization, pay attention. You don’t need to panic. But you do need real due diligence while you still have leverage.

Cash solves today. Equity compounds tomorrow. Here’s a straightforward way to tell whether equity is actually a good deal for you.

In the world of advisor transitions, equity as part of a transition deal is no longer a new headline. That said, it’s still relatively new in the industry from a macro perspective. That’s important. Equity is best measured as a good or bad decision over time.

That also means it can be harder for advisors who follow headlines to know if equity deals are legitimately a good strategy for what they’re looking to accomplish.

They’re looking for a clean way to answer a practical question: Is this equity a real opportunity, or just a risky add-on packaged with a smaller check?

I walk through one of my favorite real-world case studies: a $370M firm doing a little over $2.8M in revenue, with strong payouts (97% advisory / 92% brokerage) and a clear runway to keep growing.

They were looking for a better partner.

Firms rarely stand up in front of advisors and say, “We’re changing direction and priorities.” They do something quieter. They change the comp plan.

And then they act surprised when advisors start asking questions.

They shouldn’t be surprised. Comp plans are a message about what the firm wants you to become if you pay attention to incentives.

I’ve watched a lot of advisors get hypnotized by “the payout”. I’ve also watched a lot of people go overboard being anti-payout, as a matter of principle.

And in a sense, I get it. If you’ve lived in a W-2 world, that grid feels like the whole story, but it isn’t. Payout is a headline, not your paycheck.

If independence were a single, clearly defined category, this would be an easier conversation.