Not All Independence Is Created Equal
If independence were a single, clearly defined category, this would be an easier conversation. That’s why I chuckle when I hear W-2 or wirehouse advisors talk about “going independent” as if it were all one destination. In truth, they know there are more options these days, but the industry consistently paints the big change with the broad brush of independence.
In practice, “going independent” can mean anything from:
Almost exactly what I had before, just with a different logo to…
Why am I suddenly responsible for decisions I never had to think about?
Both get labeled as independent, but they obviously feel very different. That difference is still surprisingly misunderstood by advisors in W-2 and wirehouse channels, though awareness is growing.
Independence Comes in Very Different Forms
Once advisors decide they want out of a W-2 or wirehouse environment, it is tempting to treat independence as a destination rather than a design choice. In reality, independent models vary widely.
Some are built to feel familiar to W-2 and wirehouse teams. They offer bundled services, guardrails, and a clear operating playbook. For many advisors, that familiarity is a feature, not a flaw. It lowers risk and shortens the learning curve. Firms like LPL are increasingly building their recruiting pitch to be appealing to this kind of advisor team, even at the expense of their historic independent base.
Other models are intentionally lower support but are more flexible. They prioritize transparency and choice but require the advisor to be more involved in decisions around technology, vendors, and workflows.
Then there are partnership, tuck-in, and capital-backed models that land somewhere in between. These often provide community, shared services, or growth support, but introduce tradeoffs around autonomy, economics, or long-term optionality.
All of these count as independence. They just create very different day-to-day experiences.
What Actually Changes Between Independence Models
The most meaningful differences rarely show up in recruiting decks. They show up in how the business actually runs.
In some models, decisions move quickly because the advisor owns them. In others, decisions slow down because the platform is designed to protect scale.
Some structures give advisors broad latitude to design pricing, service models, and client experience. Others standardize those choices to create consistency across the firm.
Technology can either support your workflow or force you to adapt to someone else’s. Costs can be explicit and intentional, or bundled and difficult to unpack. Support can feel personal and responsive, or distant and procedural.
None of this is inherently good or bad. The mistake is not having a well-informed (or well-guided) understanding of the trades you're making with each option. What you want can be easily tripped up by what you gave up to get it.
Why This Matters Before You Choose
Most advisors who make a second move do not regret leaving their original firm. That said, I commonly find that they regret choosing an independence model that did not fit how they actually wanted to operate.
They optimized for speed, familiarity, or short-term economics, and only later realized that the day-to-day experience was misaligned. By the time that becomes clear, momentum is already lost. Independence works best when the structure supports the business you are building, not just the move you are making.
A Simple Reframe
The goal of independence is not maximum freedom or maximum support. It is alignment. The right model is the one that gives you the control you care about, the support you value, and the flexibility to evolve as your business changes.
That looks different for different advisors. And that is exactly the point.