Perspectives: Insights for Advisors

Articles authored by our team designed to broaden your perspective and arm you with knowledge—because knowledge is power.
| Knowledgebase for Advisors | Advisor Mindset | When the Partnership Still Works, But One Partner Wants More

When the Partnership Still Works, But One Partner Wants More

By Mindy Diamond, WealthManagement.com - Even successful financial advisor partnerships can reach a crossroads when partners begin to want different things. Mindy Diamond explores how to navigate diverging ambitions without losing sight of what made the partnership successful.

At a Glance

Successful financial advisor partnerships can reach a crossroads even when the business – and the partnership itself – is working well. As partners move through different stages of their careers, their goals, appetite for risk, and vision for the future may begin to diverge.

The challenge is determining whether those differences can be accommodated within the partnership or whether they point to fundamentally different paths. Before considering a change, partners need to understand what they individually want, distinguish frustration with the firm from differences within the partnership, and have an honest conversation about what comes next.

Even the strongest financial advisor partnerships can reach a crossroads when partners want different things for the next chapter.

Some of the hardest decisions I’ve watched advisors wrestle with begin not because something is wrong, but because the people who built the business together no longer want exactly the same things.

This is especially true (and complicated) on successful ensemble teams. The partners may have spent decades building something they’re enormously proud of. They trust and respect one another, their clients are well served, and the business may be more successful than they ever imagined it would become. Yet success doesn’t guarantee that people will continue to evolve in lockstep. At some point, one partner may begin thinking differently about what he or she wants from the next chapter.

Maybe one wants to grow more aggressively or have greater control over the business, while another is perfectly satisfied with what they’ve built. One may be starting to think about succession while another feels there is still a great deal more to accomplish. Different ages, levels of wealth, family circumstances, and appetites for risk can all influence what each person wants.

No one is wrong. There is no obvious problem to solve. That’s what makes it so difficult.

When one partner starts to feel the itch

I’ve seen this dynamic play out many times over the years. One partner starts to feel an itch that the others don’t necessarily feel, and because the business is working so well, it can be remarkably easy to dismiss.

So the advisor who wants something different begins asking himself questions that can be surprisingly difficult to answer:

My partners are happy here. Why aren’t I?
Who am I to disrupt what we’ve built?
What if I push this and they don’t want to come?
Is what I want worth risking this partnership?
I’m making more money than I ever dreamed possible. How can I possibly complain?

We talk a lot in this industry about golden handcuffs – deferred compensation, retention packages, equity and forgivable loans – but on great teams, I think the emotional ties can be far more powerful. History, loyalty, gratitude, and friendship can make even the idea of raising the subject feel disloyal.

I have watched extraordinarily decisive advisors struggle for years to say something that is actually quite simple: “I love what we’ve built together, but I’m beginning to wonder whether I want something different.”

So, what are they to do?

Wanting something different doesn’t mean the partnership has failed

We saw a version of this dynamic when we advised a large team’s departure from Merrill to launch an RIA. The essential partners ultimately aligned around a shared vision and made the move together, while some advisors on the broader team chose not to go.

For them, the entrepreneurial risk and responsibility that came with building something new simply wasn’t what they wanted. With the benefit of hindsight, that distinction matters: Those who felt compelled to build something different are doing exactly that, while those who wanted another path were able to choose it.

To me, that is an important part of alignment that often gets overlooked. It isn’t necessarily about convincing everyone to want the same thing. Sometimes it means being honest enough to acknowledge that you don’t.

That said, wanting something different doesn’t automatically mean leaving is the answer.

What does “more” actually mean?

It’s tempting to assume that when a highly successful advisor wants “more,” they mean more money. In my experience, that often isn’t the issue at all.

“More” may mean greater autonomy or the ability to make decisions without asking permission. It may be about how the business grows, how clients are served, how the next generation is developed, or whether the advisor has the ability to build something with real enterprise value. Sometimes it is simply the recognition that the business model that worked extraordinarily well for decades no longer fits what that advisor wants from the years ahead.

To be sure, there are things more valuable than optimizing every aspect of a business, and a great partnership may certainly be one of them. An advisor may decide that staying together matters more than greater autonomy or the opportunity to build something different. I’ve counseled many advisors for whom staying was absolutely the right choice.

But there is an important distinction between consciously choosing what you have and remaining there because the alternative conversation is too uncomfortable to have.

When differences in ambition go unacknowledged, they have a way of showing up elsewhere. Frustration with the firm may become more pronounced. Growth decisions become harder. Small differences with partners begin to feel larger than they once did. Eventually, a compensation change, leadership decision, or another bureaucratic “no” becomes the catalyst for a conversation that probably should have happened years earlier.

If you’re the partner who wants more

Before asking where you could go, spend some time understanding what you’re actually trying to solve. The answers will help determine whether the issue is something the partnership can address together—or whether you really are beginning to envision a different path.

Define the itch. Is this about autonomy, growth, economics, or succession? Do you need capabilities your firm can’t provide as your clients become more complex? Has building something of your own become increasingly important to you? Until you understand what you’re seeking, it’s difficult to ask your partners to consider it with you.

Separate the firm from the partnership. Are you frustrated by what your firm won’t allow you to do, or have you and your partners begun to want different things from your careers? An advisor who wants something different from the firm may discover that his partners feel exactly the same way once someone finally raises the subject. But if the partners themselves have different visions for the future, that is a different issue to work through.

Consider what happens if nothing changes. Imagine yourself five years from now in essentially the same environment. Would you feel grateful that you protected what you built together, or would you regret never exploring what else might have been possible? Advisors spend enormous energy analyzing the risks associated with making a change. The status quo carries risk, too.

Know what really is non-negotiable. If keeping the partnership together matters more than anything else, acknowledge that. If pursuing a different vision has become essential to what you want from the next chapter, acknowledge that as well. There is value in being clear with yourself before asking your partners to engage in the same exercise.

And then have the conversation you may have been avoiding. Not with a recruiter; with your partners. Tell them what you want before deciding they won’t want it too.

The conversation may change the answer

Perhaps that assumption is correct. But after decades of working with teams through these decisions, I’ve learned that people can surprise one another once the real conversation begins.

Sometimes one partner finally articulates something the others have been thinking too, and what looked like an individual ambition turns out to be a shared one. Other times, people who care deeply about one another discover that they genuinely want different things from the next chapter.

Either answer provides something years of quietly wondering cannot: clarity.

From where I sit, I would never tell an advisor to dismantle a great partnership in pursuit of some theoretical “better.” There is no perfect firm or model, and entrepreneurship carries real risks that shouldn’t be romanticized. Yet, preserving a partnership at all costs can require an individual to ignore something that has become increasingly important to them.

After more than three decades doing this work, I’ve found that these are often the hardest decisions because the choice isn’t between something good and something bad. It may be between something very good that you’ve built together and the possibility that what you want next is no longer exactly the same.

If you’ve been fortunate enough to build a business of consequence with people you value, you owe it to your partners to be thoughtful about what you’ve built together. But before deciding that preserving it requires you to put aside what you want, give them – and yourself – the benefit of an honest conversation.

As seen on WealthManagement.com…

3 Key Takeaways

  1. Strong partnerships don’t require partners to evolve in lockstep.
    Different career horizons, financial circumstances, and ambitions can lead successful partners to want different things from the next chapter. That doesn’t mean the partnership has failed.
  2. Staying together can be the right choice—but it should be a conscious one.
    A valuable partnership may outweigh the benefits of greater autonomy or a different business model. The important distinction is between actively choosing to stay and avoiding a difficult conversation about what one or more partners really want.
  3. Talk to your partners before deciding what they’ll say.
    Partners sometimes assume they already know how the others will respond to the idea of change. An honest conversation may reveal greater alignment than expected—or clarify that their visions for the future truly are different.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself

  • What am I really looking for that I don’t have today?
  • Is my frustration with my firm, my business model, or the direction of the partnership?
  • Have my goals changed—or am I reacting to a temporary frustration?
  • What matters most to me at this stage: autonomy, growth, economics, succession, client capabilities, enterprise value, or something else?
  • If nothing changes over the next five years, how will I feel about the choice to stay?
  • Am I protecting a partnership I deeply value or avoiding a conversation I’m afraid to have?
  • Have I given my partners the opportunity to tell me what they want from the next chapter?

FAQs

Partners who were highly aligned when they built their business may develop different goals as their careers and personal circumstances evolve. Differences in career horizon, wealth, family considerations, appetite for risk, growth ambitions, or desire for greater autonomy can all influence what each partner wants next. Misalignment does not necessarily mean the partnership is unsuccessful or needs to end.

Start by defining what each partner actually wants and where the differences lie. It’s especially important to determine whether the underlying issue is dissatisfaction with the current firm or a genuine difference in the partners’ visions for their careers. That clarity should come before evaluating other firms or business models.

Yes. Partners don’t need identical goals for a partnership to keep working. In some cases, the business can evolve to accommodate different priorities. In others, one partner may consciously decide that preserving a valuable partnership matters more than pursuing greater autonomy or another opportunity.

There is no single trigger. A useful starting point is to consider whether the partnership can accommodate what the advisor now wants from the business and career. If important goals have become incompatible or one partner would have to continually suppress priorities that have become essential, it may be appropriate to explore what other paths could look like.

When the partnership itself remains strong, an honest conversation with partners should generally come first. Advisors sometimes assume their partners would never consider a different firm or model, only to discover that they share similar concerns or ambitions. The goal is to understand whether the team can envision its next chapter together before assuming it cannot.

Not necessarily. Changing firms or models carries real risks, but maintaining the status quo can carry risks as well. Unaddressed differences among partners may eventually create frustration around growth, client service, succession, or other business decisions. The relevant question isn’t simply which option involves less disruption, but which best supports what the partners want over the long term.

Related Resources

Wealth Management Landscape at a Glance
A visual comparison of the major affiliation models available to financial advisors, including the differences in ownership, control, support, and economics.

Your Practice Isn’t Worth What You Think
An examination of what drives enterprise value in wealth management and why an advisor’s perception of business value may differ from what buyers are willing to pay.

Share:

Subscribe for Updates

Get updated by email when a new article is added.

Recent Topics

Does Independence Make Good Economic Sense?

By Wendy Leung – The economics of financial advisor independence have changed. Explore transition capital, profitability, enterprise valuations, and the financial benefits of ownership.