The Hypocrisy of "Up Front Money" Conversations in 2025
There’s a lot of noise in the industry right now about upfront money. You’ve probably heard the talking points:
“Upfront deals are out of control.”
“We need to restore integrity in how transitions are incentivized.”
“This isn’t sustainable.”
You may agree or disagree with the statements, but can we agree that we feel like everyone has an agenda behind their take? Are we just talking past each other and not having an honest conversation?
And look — I understand where that frustration is coming from. Even with a few years of eye-popping numbers under our belts, we still feel a little baffled by the inflated numbers. But what I don’t understand is the selective outrage.
Because many of the same firms criticizing upfront packages are the ones that built their growth strategy around them… for the last 5-10 years.
Suddenly, It’s a Problem?
The moment a firm stops growing (or stops reporting their headcount) they pivot their tone.
Now, we’re told that the upfront model is broken. That advisors shouldn’t “sell out” or take the check. That there’s something unethical or short-sighted about accepting a strong financial offer in a competitive market.
Meanwhile, some of the biggest deals are still happening behind the scenes. I can tell you as a recruiter, these big deals are often with the same firms raising the loudest objections.
It’s convenient timing.
Everybody’s Got Their Angle
Let’s not pretend this conversation is usually neutral.
If someone exclusively helps advisors build their own RIA, of course they’re going to say upfront money is toxic.
If a platform offers only soft-dollar support (tech reimbursement, billing help), they’ll frame that as the ethical choice.
If a firm pays 125 to 150 bps and provides better service, recruiting support, and operational control, they’ll tell you they’re leveling the field.
Who’s right? Maybe none of them. Maybe all of them. It depends on your business.
What I know is this: there’s a difference between playing the game and understanding it. And too many people are pointing fingers instead of helping advisors actually weigh the trade-offs.
Don’t Confuse One Decision with the Whole System
If an advisor takes upfront capital in the form of a note, with favorable support, ownership clarity, and better infrastructure, I don’t think that makes them “the problem.”
Just like skipping the check doesn’t fix the system. The checks will be offered to someone else, and any sustainability problem will march on through. Even more important, there are some really great firms offering great up-front money. And yes, I have seen advisors not entertain deals with these great firms because they get the slightest sniff of personally “selling out”. Extremely unhealthy and unproductive approach.
It’s a Strategic Question, Not an Ethics Question
Here’s what I care about:
Does the advisor understand the full economic picture?
How does upfront investment offset (or not) high service fees?
Are they sacrificing more control than they realize?
Are they getting long-term value — not just short-term cash?
Is the firm truly aligned with their goals, values, and client experience?
Every advisor’s business is unique. Every personal situation is different. What matters is whether the decision serves the long arc of the advisor’s vision, not whether it checks someone else’s philosophical box.
Know Who You’re Really Talking To
One final thought: I’ve been surprised lately by how little some partner firms know about the advisors they claim to support. It’s a good reminder of something that’s true in both advisor transitions and financial planning itself: you can’t make good recommendations if you don’t actually understand the person in front of you.
Same goes for firms, recruiters, and platforms. If someone’s handing you a one-size-fits-all answer about what you should do, they’re probably working with a limited view of your story.
Know the difference. Work with someone who understands what you want for your business, your family, and your legacy.