My 2026 Guide to Advisor Affiliation Models
One of the biggest reasons that W-2 or wirehouse advisors stay put longer than they want to, has nothing to do with clients or money. “I like the idea of independence, but I don’t want to rebuild the entire firm from scratch.”
That apprehension is understandable, but it is also outdated. Independence today does not mean doing everything yourself. It means choosing what you want help with and paying for it intentionally instead of inheriting it by default.
Independence Has More Options Than Most Advisors Realize
Ten or fifteen years ago, leaving a wirehouse or W-2 firm often meant a hard pivot. You were either supported by a large institution or on your own. That is no longer the case.
Today, independence sits on a spectrum. Advisors can choose from a mix of support and affiliation models that look very different from the “solo RIA in a spare bedroom” stereotype.
Common options include:
Supported independence platforms that handle compliance, operations, billing, and technology
Hybrid RIA structures that preserve flexibility across custodians or broker-dealers
OCIOs and turnkey asset management providers for advisors who do not want to run portfolios
Outsourced compliance, trading, and operations partners
Investment-only or service-only partnerships that replace internal staff
Most independent advisors use several of these at once. Independence today is less about self-reliance and more about design. It’s support, but with control and optionality. No more inheriting an entire ecosystem, weaknesses and limitations included.
A More Thorough Breakdown of Affiliation Types
The best way to describe the spectrum of support to choose from is best mapped out by affiliation. This is where you get more granular about what exactly you want and how to best find it. Think of “affiliation” as the legal + operational container you work inside. Most advisors today choose a primary model, then layer providers on top.
1.) Employee/W-2 at a wirehouse or large firm
You are an employee. The firm controls most of the stack and decision-making.
Typical tradeoffs:
Pros: brand, infrastructure, perceived stability, integrated payroll/benefits
Cons: limited control, standardization, political friction, less ownership/optionality
This is what most advisors are comparing alternatives against.
2.) Independent contractor under a broker-dealer
You are not an employee, but you affiliate with a BD for compliance/supervision and typically use their approved platform.
Where this fits:
Advisors who want independence without building an RIA immediately
Advisors with broker-dealer business (commission, advisory through BD platform, etc.)
Typical tradeoffs:
Pros: easier step out of W-2, built-in supervision/compliance framework
Cons: constraints from BD approval lists, fees, less control than pure RIA
3.) OSJ affiliation (Office of Supervisory Jurisdiction) under a broker-dealer
An OSJ is essentially a supervisory layer within the BD ecosystem. Many advisors “affiliate” more with the OSJ than the BD day-to-day.
Where this fits:
Advisors who want a higher-touch support layer (ops/compliance guidance)
Teams that value a “home office feel” without being W-2
Typical tradeoffs:
Pros: often better responsiveness and practical help; community; coaching
Cons: additional fees and constraints; varies widely by OSJ quality
4.) Hybrid advisor (own RIA + broker-dealer affiliation)
You operate an RIA for advisory business but maintain BD affiliation for certain product lines, client needs, or legacy business.
Where this fits:
Advisors who want RIA control but still need BD capabilities
Advisors transitioning gradually away from BD model
Typical tradeoffs:
Pros: flexibility; you can choose best structure per client
Cons: complexity; dual compliance; tech and workflow can be messier
5.) Join an existing independent RIA (W-2 or 1099 inside an RIA)
You join a standalone RIA as an advisor/partner/employee. You are “independent” from wirehouses, but not necessarily an owner.
Where this fits:
Advisors who want independence benefits without building infrastructure
Advisors who want a team + succession path
Typical tradeoffs:
Pros: shared services; built-in staff/process; less operational burden
Cons: less control than owning your own; politics still exist; economics vary
6.) Launch your own standalone RIA
You own the entity. You choose the custodian(s), tech stack, vendors, and service model.
Where this fits:
Advisors who want maximum control + ownership
Advisors who are ready to design their own client experience and operations
Typical tradeoffs:
Pros: control, transparency, optionality, enterprise value creation
Cons: you must build or buy support, more decisions, more responsibility
7.) RIA platform / “supported RIA” / “RIA-in-a-box”
You operate under your own brand (sometimes your own RIA entity, sometimes under a corporate RIA) while a platform provides infrastructure and guardrails. This category varies massively, so it helps to ask:
Do I own the RIA, or am I operating under theirs?
Where this fits:
Advisors who want independence with guardrails and turnkey support
Advisors moving from W-2 who want speed and reduced operational burden
Typical tradeoffs:
Pros: faster launch, less operational lift, packaged support
Cons: platform fees, sometimes less control, sometimes restrictions
8.) Corporate RIA / solicitor arrangement / tuck-in model
You join a larger RIA under their ADV and compliance umbrella (often as a “tuck-in”). You may retain branding or adopt theirs.
Where this fits:
Advisors who want to stop being operators
Advisors who want liquidity, succession, or institutional support
Typical tradeoffs:
Pros: removes administrative burden; centralized resources
Cons: reduced autonomy; economics may be less favorable long-term
9.) Aggregator / partnership model (minority investment, shared services, M&A pipeline)
You remain operationally independent but align with a partner providing capital, shared services, and growth infrastructure.
Where this fits:
Advisors who want to scale, de-risk, or build enterprise value with help
Owners thinking about succession and future sale options
Typical tradeoffs:
Pros: capital + resources; growth support; de-risking
Cons: governance complexity; economic sharing; less independence over time
Practical question: Does the platform improve client experience or just promise to?
Tradeoffs Still Exist — and That’s a Feature
Now, for all the optimistic language of independence and control, Independence is not free. That’s ok, but I do think many recruiters underemphasize the long-term trades many W2 and wirehouse advisors make when they choose more support.
More support usually means higher explicit costs and some loss of control. Less support means lower costs, more responsibility, and more flexibility. You can get support on things like office space, staffing, marketing, or more. Of course, that’s going to cost more. On the other hand, the structure of the cost is what catches advisors off guard. You pick your head up in 5 years and realize, now that you’ve grown significantly, that the payouts you agreed to when you went independent are costing you far more than you need now.
This is one of the big questions I help advisors model so they can understand just how much they’re trading when they opt for more support. Counting up the cost, so to speak.
For many advisors, even a well-supported independence model strikes a better balance than staying within a large W-2 structure, where both support and control are limited.
The Real Advantage Is Optionality
The biggest benefit of independence is that you can change things later. You can adjust partners, add support, reduce costs, redesign service, or plan succession without asking permission (but not at every broker-dealer or RIA…). That optionality compounds over time.
A more useful question than “Am I ready to go out on my own?” is: “What support do I want now, and what flexibility do I want to preserve?”
Not every advisor should leave a wirehouse or W-2 firm. Many are exactly where they should be, but independence today is far more flexible than most advisors realize. It does not require a harrowing, isolated leap. With thorough, guided due diligence, you might be amazed at how much exists to support you in the modern advisor marketplace.
You are not choosing between support and control. You are choosing how much of each you want.