Overview: Solo Advisors who are looking to extract their business value often feel they have a dilemma if they don’t currently have an internal succession candidate. Do they hire an employee to develop into their eventual buyer or choose to sell to an outsider? There is another option that many aren’t aware of that can bring a solution for those who wish to bring in a qualified successor candidate without breaking the bank.
Many solo Advisors have stated they do not favor selling their business to “an outsider” as the ideal succession plan. In fact, the results of a recent survey performed by Succession Planning Consultants showed that less than 20% of Advisors favored this method as their top choice.

Selling Advisory Practice
Given the freedom to choose any succession method, Advisors overwhelmingly, by a margin of over 60%, favored the internal succession model. It is apparent that the Advisors have a clear understanding of the many benefits the model offers over the choice of selling to an outsider who has not ever been involved with their firm. Upon further questioning, the Advisors were asked to rank their opinion to the importance of the various types of internal succession strategies .. Of the options given, Advisors understandably chose selling to a current non-owner associate in their firm as first, and then the strategy of adding an associate to their firm to first mentor and then create a succession plan as second.
Third in importance was the unique strategy of having a younger associate, in early or midcareer, merge their business into the Advisor’s business in return for a stake of equity in the new enterprise. This paper focuses on this last strategy primarily because many solo NEXT Advisors have requested more information on those creative solutions that help to address and solve the dilemma of not currently having an internal succession candidate. Such is the nature of the Equity in Return for a Merged Book of Business strategy.
While putting out feelers for candidates in your succession plan, some of you will happen upon a younger Advisor who is looking for an opportunity to acquire a retiring Advisor’s business. At first glance, it may seem as if this opportunity is ideal. Yet, a closer inspection of the circumstances usually reveals the typical “deal-killer” often seen in the industry: the associate’s financial inability to make an outright purchase of the business. This is where the strategy of merging in return for an equity stake can benefit both parties.
The Equity in Return for a Merged Book of Business strategy has a simple premise as its foundation; recruit a younger candidate who owns a small book of business and is willing to merge into your firm with the expectation that he or she will become an integral part of your future succession plans. In return the Jr. Advisor is given a stake in the business equal to the contribution the revenues generated by his client base bring to the bottom line. Then, over time, the Jr. Advisor begins a buyout of the senior Advisor using financing terms typical to a.ll Advisor practice transitions such as the earn-out method.
Be aware, though., that this approach is very different from your average practice merger between two equally experienced partners. In essence, the strategy’s advantage is the ability to get past the concept of starting from scratch by adding a moderately experienced associate rather than one fresh out of college. Secondly, the book of business the junior advisor brings to the firm not only will help to grow the business, but the revenues it generates help to pay for the Advisor’s position in your firm. Certain early or mid-career practitioners will leap at the right opportunity to join a veteran Advisor in such an arrangement.
Addressing the Risks
Solo Advisors are sole owners of their firms for a reason – they value their independence. That decision is fine through most of your career, but what impact will it have when it comes to extracting your business value? Large, it can be argued. If the solo Advisor doesn’t have access to strategies that allow for an internal succession they are pretty much stuck with only one option – selling to an outsider. Anyone reading the industry press of late knows that those deals hold significant risks that internal successions tend to diminish. The most important is the risk of high client attrition.
Selling to an outsider is very much like selling your home to another person. When the papers are signed, the keys are handed over, and the previous owners pack up and leave. That might be fine with a home, but with a client base it is often too much of a shock for someone to be suddenly introduced to them as the “new owner-Advisor” on a late Friday afternoon.
Although this may be a bit of an exaggeration, selling to an outsider always has to be kept secret until the deal is done for the seller’s sake. And because the buyer has agreed to pay good money for the business, the seller will have little or no say-so in how things are run. In fact, all outside Advisory sales include non-solicitation and non-compete agreements on the seller to protect the buyer’s interest. So other than an agreed upon and needed involvement of the seller to help transition the client base over a typical 3-6 month period, the former owner has restrictions on contacting clients. Because the investment advisory business is all about relationships, these realities can put clients into a very uncomfortable position, and for some, it is the opportunity to move their accounts elsewhere. It is for these reasons that business sales to outsiders have such a high attrition rate, which ultimately can affect the total value received by the seller, since payments are based on the number of clients transferred and that stay with the new Advisor.
Conversely, because a new Advisor is introduced to clients more slowly and allowed to develop relationships over time in virtually all internal succession plans, the risks of any clients leaving during the transition are significantly lower. Yet, with the Equity in Return for a Merged Book of Business strategy, we are still stuck with a major risk that many solo Advisors do not want to take. That is, giving any equity to another Advisor in return for merging their client base and therefore creating someone to whom they have to answer. If they miss their mark in judging the match of this person, the whole deal can be difficult, if not impossible, to unwind. You may also be concerned about how well the junior Advisor’s clients will transfer into the programs and services your firm currently offers, how profitable the new relationships will become, and how the relationship with the new associate (and new minority owner/partner) will work out.
So the question becomes, how can you mitigate the risks associated with bringing in an associate to whom you immediately convey some percentage of ownership in return for merging their clients into your firm?
One answer is to fall back on an old favorite of financial Advisors. That is, put into operation a joint venture agreement that allows for the deliberate testing of the relationship. Advisors are partial to and comfortable with these agreements because they generally don’t require substantial resources or financial commitments to try out a business arrangement. Examples of traditional joint venture agreements include referral arrangements with professionals such as CPAs, lawyers, or insurance professionals that are to provide unique services for your clients and vice-versa with you providing advisory services to their clients. In other cases, the agreement is with another Advisor who has a complementary skill, such as investment analysis or creating financial plans, which you choose not to perform. For purposes of this section though,let’s think of the joint venture in specific terms as a means to test a business arrangement with a potential junior partner of the firm before officially bringing them in.
For example, the associate could be brought in to share office space and certain expenses for a period of six months to a year while the merger prospect is examined further. If, at the end of the period, the arrangement does not work out, the younger associate would be free to leave with his or her clients and you would have no further obligations. (Keep in mind that it would be reasonable to agree in advance to some sort of financial consideration or reimbursement for the cost of the Advisor relocating their business under this contingency.)
Never should this trial period be used arbitrarily by an owner who isn’t serious about wanting the venture to turn into an actual merger and an eventual succession plan. This would foster bad feelings and be a waste of time, money, and effort for all parties.
This “trial period” does allow you to significantly decrease the risk of prematurely exchanging part of the firm’s ownership shares in exchange for the merged client base only to find out that the arrangement wasn’t working well. Given that compensating an outsider with equity before you know them is considered risky anyway, it only makes sense to have this safety net for both parties. This quasi version of a joint venture agreement will also allow both sides the time to discover their strengths and weaknesses and to identify those skills that can be best put to use when the actual merger is carried out.
THE BENEFITS OF A “TRIAL JOINT VENTURE” WITH A MERGER CANDIDATE
- Both parties are allowed time to get to know and adapt to each other’s style
- It allows time to get processes in place and for roles to develop before a more permanent agreement is decided upon
- It allows time for the strategic planning of goals and development of the direction the firm will take after a merger
- The arrangement allows for the associate to have time to experience and evaluate the responsibilities and expectations they would have under a longer-term arrangement
- It allows for the clients, employees of the firm, and the new associate to become accustomed to the change
- It allows the owner and the junior advisor time to build the trust and communication
- The trial period gives both parties time to develop the details of the agreement that will be used for the merger of the book of business and for future compensation strategies
One note of caution that should be apparent: It is even more important that you do your homework on the profile and personality required for this type of business arrangement and the specific circumstances in your firm than if you were simply looking to employ an Advisor without a book of business. In the former case your intent is to, at some point, transfer a portion of your ownership to secure the merger bargain, which will make the Advisor a minority owner. In the latter case, if a junior advisor was hired as an employee and it didn’t work out, the separation would be less difficult (which is why you want to use the trial joint venture as a safety net).
Also, keep in mind that you shouldn’t overlook the synergies of searching for a candidate whose client base isn’t offered your current core services (such as asset management) and that can conversely offer your clients services you don’t currently provide. Under this scenario, crossselling each other’s services will create more profitabtllty for both parties during the trial period, and possibly allow more room for the financial aspects of the deal to work themselves out when moving into the actual merger.
There is one final point regarding the boundaries you should set when establishing the trial joint venture. They should have specific time limitations and triggering events attached to them. For example, if several years have passed and you have not offered to merge the junior advisor’s book into the firm in exchange for ownership shares, you’re likely to lose the associate to another opportunity outside your firm. They may even take clients of the firm with them, unless of course you’ve followed the advice to have all employees or associates sign a Non-Solicitation/Non-Disclosure Agreement.
The associate who was specifically attracted to the future ownership/partner aspects of your offer will be disappointed if no timeframes are set in the beginning to give target dates for decision-making. Before the arrangement is seeded, determine the responsibilities of both parties, develop benchmarks for measuring progress in the budding relationship, and select the timelines for the trial period to evolve into a more permanent association.
Valuing the Soon-To-Be-Merged Book of Business
There are many approaches Advisors can take in valuing a junior associate’s book of business that you’re considering merging into your firm. You could use the “open marker’ or fair market value, which is what the book would bring from an informed buyer outside the firm. But most experts would not suggest its use for these Circumstances, since this value is based primarily on an earn-out composition in which the real value is not determined until after all payments are made.
Another method that some have used to value merged books of business is the “rule of thumb” approach, which involves applying a simple multiple to the assets under management or the gross revenues generated. This, too, has many drawbacks, Which include not taking into consideration any potential attrition the book may experience during a merger or how profitable or not the book may be in the framework of the new firm. Rules of thumb also ignore the synergies that a junior advisor may be bringing to the firm.
It is possible that a good percentage of the value of the partnership with the associate may rest In the non-financial aspects of the arrangement. This could include the associate possessing skills or business acumen that add to the firm’s welfare or positive relationships and contacts the junior advisor has already developed within the community.
A better and more appropriate method of valuation in these circumstances is to use a modified version of the “net cash flow” approach. This process first involves determining the net cash flow (or profits) that the book will generate after the associate’s business is merged into the new firm, times a multiple that takes several factors into consideration and then, if warranted, applies certain premiums or discounts for special circumstances benefiting or jeopardizing the firm. The more complete formula steps are as follows:
- Determine the new total gross cash-flow for your firm;
- Average your firm’s gross expenses for the last two years (in terms of a percentage);
- Subtract this gross expense ratio and then subtotal for the net cash flow of the revenues when under your firm’s expense ratio;
- Multiply the result by the market norm of four-seven times net cash flow. In those circumstances where the associate is bringing value beyond the net cash flow generated, it would move the multiple up the scale. These could include certain premiums that benefit the firm and that didn’t exist before, such as tax/accounting skills, marketing skills, technology skills, etc. A higher multiple may also be required if the associate’s client accounts will generate new revenues by buying services or products not previously offered them. This, in essence, would create two income streams (the old and the new) for increased profitability.
- Subtotal for the gross value for the book of business;
- If appropriate, subtract a minority interest discount, which is standard for small ownership posltlons.;
- Subtotal to arrive at the net value for the book of business;
- Determine your firm’s stock per-share-value and divide the amount by the net value for the book of business;
- This is the total number of shares (or percent of shares) due the associate for the merged book of business.
For example, on a book of business with $10 million of AUM, generating $110,000 of gross revenues to the new firm, the formula could be as follows:
Step 1: Determine gross cash flow into your business $110,000 Gross Revenues
Step 2: Subtract your firm’s gross expense ratio -71 ,500 Gross expenses (65%)
Step 3: Subtotal for net cash flow to your firm $ 38,500 Net cash flow
Step 4: Times multiple (associate has marketing skills)
Step 5: Gross value result for book of business $154,000 Gross Value of Book
Step 6: Apply discount for minority ownership* -38,500 Minority Discount (25%)
Step 7: Net value result for book of business $115,500.00 Net value of book
Step 8: Divide by company share price** + 280.00 ABC stock unit price
Total number of shares exchanged for the book 412.5 ABC shares or 6% ownership due associate in return for merging their book of business
*If you apply the discount here, be cautious not to apply the same discount twice when formulating a buy-sell agreement. **There are many methods used to determine the share price of a closely-held business. Be careful to use a method or formula that is congruent with existing buy-sell agreements.
The most important and most subjective part of the formula is Step 4, which calls for applying a multiple to the net cash flow to determine the gross value of the book of business to your firm. As stated in the example, jf the junior advisor is bringing to the table certain skills or synergies that did not previously exist in your firm, this added value should be considered in the total appraisal of the ownership percentage to be offered the candidate. Also, where the addition of the partner might bring certain cost savings or a reduction of the firm’s overall expenses, these too should be considered as added value in the formula.
Where warranted, you could consider applying other discounts in addition to the minority discount taken in Step 6 of the formula. For example, jf you determine that the client base is at risk to experience some attrition through the merger and will not therefore produce the same revenues in your firm that it did for the associate, a proper “client attrition risk discount” should be applied. In addition, when you as the current sole owner and controller of the company’s stock change to fractional ownership, you are giving up the ability to be the sole decision maker in selling to an outside willing buyer. Although your plans may have been to sell the total shares to your junior associate in the future, circumstances could change and an outside buyer may be more appropriate. In that Situation, the buyer would have to deal with two separate owners. Therefore a “lack of control discount” of 10-25 percent could also apply for your forfeiting complete control of the firm’s shares.
Another reason for discounting is where the associate’s book of business will not support the necessary income required to cover the salary paid to them by your firm. In this case, the owner can compute the value of the additional income required for the first year or two of the arrangement and reduce the number of shares by the same dollar amount to even out the requirements of the junior advisor’s compensation. Lastly, in some situations it may be appropriate to offer a combination of cash plus a percentage of ownership to the merging associate. Generally, this strategy is used where the candidate has a smaller value in their book of business. If you offer a small percentage of the total exchange value in cash, it may be the very enticement you need to bring in the type of qualified talent you’re looking for.
It is critically important to note that merger valuations can be very subjective, which can often drive firms to devise their own formulas that better address the particular circumstances at hand. It is highly advised that anyone valuing either a book of business for merger purposes or their own business, enlist the help of a qualified tax or valuation specialist.
Taxation Consequences for Mergers
A last issue that is important to consider in any merger transaction is the possible tax consequences for either party from the business transaction. Usually, when structured properly, the merger can be a tax-free business transformation for both parties, since the junior advisor is merging his or her business value into another form of business value. But since this paper is not intended to give tax advice and every circumstance is different, it is critical that both parties enlist the help of their tax and legal professionals to ensure the proper structuring of the transaction to minimize or eliminate any tax consequences.
A second, and often overlooked, aspect of possible tax consequences related to mergers is the sales tax statutes some states levy on transfers of business assets. Particularly of late, states are looking for increased revenues and in some cases, are reinterpreting past regulations regarding business transfers, which could give rise to sales tax due. There are 50 different states with 50 different systems for taxing transfers of property. It is critical that you work with your tax professionals to identify whether this is even an issue for your Circumstances, and if so, to structure any merger plans to minimize its effects or to eliminate the concern.
The Take-Away: Many solo Advtsors have looked for an efficient means by which to diversify their companies’ revenue streams and client services for years. For some, instead of developing the expertise themselves, they’ve acquired a practice and its key employees where these dissimilar product lines were already developed. The junior advisor merger option discussed above is similar in concept, but usually more financially feasible and less convoluted to set in motion. More importantly, the strategy can be an excellent means of developing a two-to-fiveyear succession strategy for the solo Advisor who is concerned with giving up ownership too quickly to the wrong party.
Written by: Succession Planning Consultants