Posts Tagged ‘Year End Bonus’

Making Beautiful Music Together—why advisors should form ensembles

Tuesday, March 30th, 2010

By Marc Lam­on­tagne, CFP, R.F.P, FMA

Mak­ing Beau­ti­ful Music Together—why advi­sors should form ensembles

There are three basic busi­ness mod­els in the finan­cial plan­ning indus­try: sole prac­ti­tioner, silo, and ensem­ble. The trend to form­ing ensem­bles or group prac­tices is well estab­lished in the U.S. among inde­pen­dent advi­sors, but has yet to emerge as a dom­i­nant model in Canada.

The prob­lem is that finan­cial prac­ti­tion­ers, by our very nature, are fiercely inde­pen­dent. So the thought of work­ing not only in a shared own­er­ship model but, more impor­tantly, a shared decision-making model can turn off many advi­sors,  even when they see the obvi­ous ben­e­fits to being an ensem­ble player.

That being said, the advan­tages can far out­weigh the neg­a­tives of giv­ing up some con­trol in the day-to-day man­age­ment of your practice.

Show me the money

The most com­pelling ben­e­fit of a group prac­tice with other play­ers is finan­cial. Although economies of scale are also obvi­ous when it comes to silo offices, ensem­bles can go much fur­ther in reduc­ing over­head cost per advi­sor. Think of it this way—there is a cost to pro­duc­ing a self-employed or cor­po­rate tax return, but it is never ten times higher for an office of ten advi­sors than it is for one.

Pro­vid­ing Bet­ter Service

You will also have a finan­cial and pro­fes­sional inter­est in your col­leagues’ books and vice versa. So it is to your ben­e­fit to make sure everyone’s clients are well served dur­ing hol­i­days, emer­gen­cies, and the busiest times of the year. This flex­i­bil­ity can be worth a lot in reduc­ing stress and improv­ing service.

This shared rev­enue com­mit­ment will often be rein­forced by a year-end bonus or share­holder dividend.

Time is money

As a sole prac­ti­tioner, the buck stops with you. Whether set­tling HR issues or design­ing port­fo­lios, you can’t avoid the work that takes you away from rev­enue gen­er­at­ing activ­i­ties. When work­ing in a silo, where just expenses are shared, indi­vid­ual advi­sors are still solely respon­si­ble for all aspects of man­ag­ing their prac­tice. By agree­ing to divide all the work among sev­eral trusted advi­sors, you can share the non-revenue pro­duc­ing activ­ity such new prod­uct research, orga­niz­ing client appre­ci­a­tion events, or writ­ing a newsletter.

Ensem­bles also allow advi­sors to spe­cial­ize in dif­fer­ent areas of finan­cial plan­ning such as tax or insur­ance. This cre­ates a large pool of knowl­edge that can be quickly accessed to bet­ter ser­vice a var­ied client base.

Giv­ing up some control

To reap the full ben­e­fit of the model, part­ners in an ensem­ble will often agree to stan­dard­ize pro­ce­dures, client deliv­er­ables, and port­fo­lios. This can seem alien to some­one who is used to run­ning every aspect of their own prac­tice, but a well-structured man­age­ment com­mit­tee will still allow all play­ers to have a say about how the office is run.

Suc­ces­sion planning

Ask your­self this: if you were seri­ously dis­abled, forced to retire, or died tomor­row, how would you retain the value of your prac­tice? By com­bin­ing your book with other advi­sors, and shar­ing prac­tice man­age­ment pro­ce­dures, you can ensure con­ti­nu­ity in case of the unthink­able. You can also assure prospec­tive clients that,  if you were to leave (for what­ever rea­son), another advi­sor would pick up their file and run their meet­ings and port­fo­lio in a sim­i­lar matter.

When the time comes to sell your share of the busi­ness, you will have a ready pool of exist­ing play­ers and asso­ciates eager to buy in. The alter­na­tive, in case of a larger prac­tice, is there will also be “finan­cial buy­ers” who will want to buy out a well-run prac­tice lock, stock, and barrel.

Share­holder agreement

A well-crafted share­holder or part­ner agree­ment will avoid any prob­lems such as those who want to coast while other play­ers are still build­ing their prac­tice. It can also spell out clear tran­si­tion plans such as buy­out formulas.

Adding new play­ers can be a chal­lenge, but the best argu­ment is that even though every­one ends up own­ing a smaller piece, it’s a big­ger pie.

In these chal­leng­ing times, belong­ing to a team of pro­fes­sion­als with a shared sense of pur­pose in a col­le­gial atmos­phere can cer­tainly pro­vide the sup­port most advi­sors wish they had.

To Fee or Not to Fee - 2009 Survey Results - What is your Business Model?

Marc Lam­on­tagne, CFP, R.F.P., FMA is a fee-based finan­cial plan­ner with Ryan Lam­on­tagne Inc., fee-model prac­tice man­age­ment trainer, and author of To Fee or Not to Fee II — How to design a fee finan­cial advi­sory prac­tice.  www​.tofee​ornot​tofee​.com

Mak­ing Beau­ti­ful Music Together—why advi­sors should form ensem­bles By Marc Lam­on­tagne, CFP, R.F.P, FMA

There are three basic busi­ness mod­els in the finan­cial plan­ning indus­try: sole prac­ti­tioner, silo, and ensem­ble. The trend to form­ing ensem­bles or group prac­tices is well estab­lished in the U.S. among inde­pen­dent advi­sors, but has yet to emerge as a dom­i­nant model in Canada.

The prob­lem is that finan­cial prac­ti­tion­ers, by our very nature, are fiercely inde­pen­dent. So the thought of work­ing not only in a shared own­er­ship model but, more impor­tantly, a shared decision-making model can turn off many advi­sors, even when they see the obvi­ous ben­e­fits to being an ensem­ble player.

That being said, the advan­tages can far out­weigh the neg­a­tives of giv­ing up some con­trol in the day-to-day man­age­ment of your practice.

Show me the money

The most com­pelling ben­e­fit of a group prac­tice with other play­ers is finan­cial. Although economies of scale are also obvi­ous when it comes to silo offices, ensem­bles can go much fur­ther in reduc­ing over­head cost per advi­sor. Think of it this way—there is a cost to pro­duc­ing a self-employed or cor­po­rate tax return, but it is never ten times higher for an office of ten advi­sors than it is for one.

Pro­vid­ing Bet­ter Service

You will also have a finan­cial and pro­fes­sional inter­est in your col­leagues’ books and vice versa. So it is to your ben­e­fit to make sure everyone’s clients are well served dur­ing hol­i­days, emer­gen­cies, and the busiest times of the year. This flex­i­bil­ity can be worth a lot in reduc­ing stress and improv­ing service.

This shared rev­enue com­mit­ment will often be rein­forced by a year-end bonus or share­holder dividend.

Time is money

As a sole prac­ti­tioner, the buck stops with you. Whether set­tling HR issues or design­ing port­fo­lios, you can’t avoid the work that takes you away from rev­enue gen­er­at­ing activ­i­ties. When work­ing in a silo, where just expenses are shared, indi­vid­ual advi­sors are still solely respon­si­ble for all aspects of man­ag­ing their prac­tice. By agree­ing to divide all the work among sev­eral trusted advi­sors, you can share the non-revenue pro­duc­ing activ­ity such new prod­uct research, orga­niz­ing client appre­ci­a­tion events, or writ­ing a newsletter.

Ensem­bles also allow advi­sors to spe­cial­ize in dif­fer­ent areas of finan­cial plan­ning such as tax or insur­ance. This cre­ates a large pool of knowl­edge that can be quickly accessed to bet­ter ser­vice a var­ied client base.

Giv­ing up some control

To reap the full ben­e­fit of the model, part­ners in an ensem­ble will often agree to stan­dard­ize pro­ce­dures, client deliv­er­ables, and port­fo­lios. This can seem alien to some­one who is used to run­ning every aspect of their own prac­tice, but a well-structured man­age­ment com­mit­tee will still allow all play­ers to have a say about how the office is run.

Suc­ces­sion planning

Ask your­self this: if you were seri­ously dis­abled, forced to retire, or died tomor­row, how would you retain the value of your prac­tice? By com­bin­ing your book with other advi­sors, and shar­ing prac­tice man­age­ment pro­ce­dures, you can ensure con­ti­nu­ity in case of the unthink­able. You can also assure prospec­tive clients that, if you were to leave (for what­ever rea­son), another advi­sor would pick up their file and run their meet­ings and port­fo­lio in a sim­i­lar mat­ter.

When the time comes to sell your share of the busi­ness, you will have a ready pool of exist­ing play­ers and asso­ciates eager to buy in. The alter­na­tive, in case of a larger prac­tice, is there will also be “finan­cial buy­ers” who will want to buy out a well-run prac­tice lock, stock, and barrel.

Share­holder agreement

A well-crafted share­holder or part­ner agree­ment will avoid any prob­lems such as those who want to coast while other play­ers are still build­ing their prac­tice. It can also spell out clear tran­si­tion plans such as buy­out formulas.

Adding new play­ers can be a chal­lenge, but the best argu­ment is that even though every­one ends up own­ing a smaller piece, it’s a big­ger pie.

In these chal­leng­ing times, belong­ing to a team of pro­fes­sion­als with a shared sense of pur­pose in a col­le­gial atmos­phere can cer­tainly pro­vide the sup­port most advi­sors wish they had.

2010 Fee Advi­sor Sur­vey, To Fee or Not to Fee

Marc Lam­on­tagne, CFP, R.F.P., FMA is a fee-based finan­cial plan­ner with Ryan Lam­on­tagne Inc., fee-model prac­tice man­age­ment trainer, and author of To Fee or Not to Fee II — How to design a fee finan­cial advi­sory prac­tice. www​.tofee​ornot​tofee​.com


    Lat­est Advi­so­r­An­a­lyst Prac­tice Growth Sto­ries



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in My Practice | Comments Off