Independence
Not every independence is independence
The word has been applied to enough different arrangements that it no longer tells you what you are getting. Two questions do.
Published
The word covers too much
It is used for an RIA you own outright, for affiliating with an independent broker-dealer, for joining a large independent firm as an employee, and for various supported or platform arrangements.
Those are meaningfully different deals. The marketing language for all of them is nearly identical.
The first question: who owns the client relationship
Not who serves it. Who owns it contractually, and what happens to it if you leave.
If the answer is that the relationship stays with the firm, you have a job. It may be an excellent job. It is not ownership.
The second question: what can you actually decide
Whether you can choose your custodian, your investment approach, your technology, and your pricing. Or whether those are set for you and independence refers to your compensation structure.
Neither answer is wrong. Confusing them is expensive.
Ask who owns the relationship and what you may decide. Everything else in the brochure is decoration.
Why the ambiguity persists
Because independence is the most attractive word in this industry, and no definition is enforced. Every model has an incentive to claim it.
The supported models are not a trick
Arrangements where you own the firm and someone else supplies infrastructure are legitimate — I run one — and for many advisors they are the right answer. The point is not that they are lesser.
The point is knowing which one you signed, particularly where equity is concerned.
Read the agreement, not the deck
The deck describes the philosophy. The agreement describes the deal. Where they differ, the agreement is what you have bought.
Have a lawyer read it. Every time.