WealthManagement.com column says advisor succession stalls on identity, not deal terms

WealthManagement.com published a column today arguing that advisor succession stalls on identity, not deal terms. The piece describes a third path between selling outright and staying in control — sell-and-stay, phased retirement, or strategic partnership — and says the structure, not the label, separates an executed plan from one that sits on a whiteboard.

The diagnosis is that hesitation is usually not about valuation, terms or control, though sometimes it is. The author, writing from experience sitting across the table from advisors, lists what a practice holds after 30 years: clients walked through marriages, health scares and the death of a spouse, and community roles such as a sponsored golf tournament or a school auction the family runs. The harder question beneath, the column says, is identity: 'Who am I when I'm not this person anymore?'

Its practical claim is about the clock: the all-or-nothing framing, the author writes, has caused more succession plan delays than almost anything else in the business.

The structural fix is a deal that keeps the founder in the chair for a defined term, buying continuity of client relationships and a gradual transfer of trust that a clean exit has to compress. The column suggests the founder's continued employment — how long, in what seat, at what pay, and what happens on an early exit — sits inside the purchase price rather than in administrative clean-up after closing.

The column offers no count of advisors who chose phased retirement, no terms, and no outcome comparison. Its claim that more advisors discover the option every year rests on the author's seat at the table rather than data; whether sell-and-stay is cheap for a buyer or expensive depends on terms the column does not set out.