If you look hard you will find b/ds who are content to only take their cut on your commission busines, and nothing on your fee business. Also, Cambridge is fee friendly, but nowhere near the most fee friendly b/d. It has nothing to do with planning fees, hourly or otherwise. Ī hybrid RIA is one who charges both fees (through an RIA) and commissions (through a b/d affiliation). Hybrid RIA/Independent rep model (where you have a practice that charges hourly for financial planning as well as fees for AUM) works best with Cambridge who were perhaps the first to promote it.
#Wachovia myaccounts plus#
Which at $500K + gross is essentially offset by the 100% gross, plus the reduced expenses associated with an RIA vs.
The RIA model grosses more, but has an additinal $20-30,000 in yearly expenses and more start up costs. Nothing beats RIA in terms of having the most freedom to operate in your preferred way.
I'm not sure I want to modify my investment management process at the same time I'm transitioning my practice. Having said that, I do have a couple of comments on your post, in the interest of helpful dialog. We need more folks here with some exposure to independent options. RJFS is a close second based on marketing and practice management support, and Cambridge not far behind based on their a la carte menu and support of RIA practices. Wheras the others mostly pick off $200 -$300k guys.
I do believe (and this may ruffle a few feathers) that FiNet is mostly interested in upper end folks ($500k+) and routinely brings on $million practices. And this is after I had all but dropped them from consideration after reading the posts on this board. I have not decided which course I wil take, but I can tell you that FiNet is back on the top of my list. The last, and perhaps most important, consideration is cultural "feel." You just have to get out there and see that for yourself because it is very subjective and personal. Surprisingly, a not uncommon comment from RJFS affiliated practices was the stricter compliance. All viewed themselves as fierce independents and said that if FiNet ever dropped the ball they would leave them, but that they are currently quite satisfied. But all the Wachovia practices I cold called were very happy. Of course, RIA w/Fidelity is $0.įinally, I decided to come up with practices affiliated with all the firms that were not on the list of referalls the firms provided and just call them out of the blue.Īfter all the negative coments about Wachovia Finet on this board, I fully expected to hear some regrets, etc. Nothing major, but if you chafe under wirehouse compliance rules, who will likely feel the same with RJFS.Ĭapital contribution (ie upfront $) Best is FiNet, but only about 5% more than RJFS. So none stood out to me.Ĭompliance oversight. RJFS was particularly impressive in this area. The RIA model grosses more, but has an additinal $20-30,000 in yearly expenses and more start up costs.Ĭommitttment to the independent model is obviously stronger with the true independent b/ds, and they have stronger marketing and practice management departments. Payouts at the $500-$600,000 production level are essentially the same. The others would take some modification to how I currently do business to fit. I can do my type of business on any platform, but it fit neatly with an RIA model as well as Cambridge and (surprisingly) FiNet. My business is fee based with much of it discretionary on my part. After visiting FiNet and then seeing this board I decided to also visit RJFS, Commonwealth, Cambridge and talk with Fidelity about an RIA model.įirst off, the platforms are quite a bit different.
Perhaps because they are part of a wirehouse and many of the indies on this board loathe the wirehouses.Īnyway, here is what I found. I think you’ll find mostly negative comments on this board to FiNet.