The retiring advisor's fork: an easier sunset deal or a better-paying sale

Divide the assets by the heads and the shape of this wave becomes clearer: roughly $150 million per retiring advisor, and in fact somewhat less, because the count is "more than" 100,000 against "nearly" $15 trillion ^{[9] [11]}. These are individual books, not institutions, which is why Nash's screen matters more than any multiple. His ideal seller does 100% fee-based business with assets that will actually move, and he says plainly that may not be the case ^[7]. A book failing either half of that test has one serious bidder, and it is the employer.

The comparison problem is structural. Bridgemark's report says a sunset package and an outright sale run on different timelines, different tax treatment, different risk, and different assumptions about who ends up owning the value of the practice ^[2], and that the two are not comparable using a single number ^[5]. What the report does not do, at least in the reporting here, is publish those differences. So the advisor who wants an apples-to-apples figure has to build the model, or hire someone to, and the report's own diagnosis is that most advisors never ask about their options and do not grasp how large the gap may be ^[13].

Meanwhile the premium that justified staying is being worn down from three directions. River Wealth's Fenimore says custodians built technology that will seamlessly switch client accounts onto their platforms ^[14]. Independents chasing teams are offering more flexibility on exit timing and deal structure, and the employee brokerages are pushing harder to keep those teams ^[4]. Fenimore's read on the wirehouse response is unsentimental: they have recognised they need to do a little bit more than they have in the past ^[3]. Each of those reduces the friction discount that made the internal deal the rational choice for a founder who did not want a project in his final years ^[7].

Nash and Diamond are not really contradicting each other. Sunsets have got a lot more lucrative, as Nash says, while independent valuations have gone up too ^[12]; Diamond's line that they are almost never the optimal economic solution is about level, not direction ^[10]. Both statements sit comfortably together, and together they describe a firm buying loyalty at a discount that is shrinking but has not closed.