The Compensation Conversation Your Firm Needs to Have
Compensation is one of the most consequential levers in an advisory firmm and one of the most misunderstood. For years, firm owners relied on industry surveys to benchmark pay. Most of those resources are gone, and the ones that remain are pulling from data that is neither vetted nor reliable. At the same time, the firms themselves have grown and changed faster than their compensation models have.
In this episode of The Fine Print, David Grau Jr. sits down with Julia Sexton, CVA, Director of Team Solutions at SRG, to work through what modern compensation design actually looks like for advisory firms. The conversation starts with benchmarking, where to find accurate data and why survey-based studies fall shortm and builds into a practical framework for structuring pay around the goals you have for your business, not just what the firm next door is doing.
Julia walks through why production-based compensation creates silos even in firms that say they want collaboration, how to design different structures for farmers and hunters on your team, and why grid-based payouts that grow with market appreciation without added work put a slow choke hold on your margins and your firm’s value. The episode also covers eligibility criteria, career path design, and how to back-test any compensation change before rolling it out so your team barely notices the difference.
Compensation is the most powerful lever in an advisory firm — and one of the least examined. When the go-to industry benchmarks disappeared, many owners kept running compensation models they inherited from the wirehouse era without stopping to ask whether those models still fit where their business is headed.
- The data problem no one is talking about. The Investment News compensation study that the industry relied on for years is gone. What replaced it pulls from government sources with small, unvetted sample sets. SRG built its Talent Strategy Report from thousands of actual valuations, scrubbed, reviewed, and confirmed, because survey data and evaluation data are not the same thing.
- Location and firm size matter less than you think. Geographic pay premiums have largely flattened in a remote-first world. Firm size affects specialization of roles more than raw compensation levels. A smaller firm may actually pay more because fewer people are wearing more hats.
- There is no right compensation model, only the right one for your goals. Before designing anything, owners need an honest conversation about what kind of business they are building. An ensemble model built for scalability and enterprise value requires a fundamentally different compensation structure than a siloed model built around individual books.
- Production-based compensation creates silos, even in firms that call themselves a team. If advisors are paid on individual revenue, they will optimize for individual revenue. The incentive and the stated goal are working against each other, and compensation always wins.
- Farmers and hunters need different structures, not just different amounts. Farmers should be incentivized on assets serviced, net flows, and client satisfaction. Hunters should be rewarded for new business brought in. Putting a farmer’s compensation model on a hunter, or vice versa, produces exactly the wrong behavior.
- Grid-based payouts quietly destroy firm value. An advisor managing the same 100 households gets paid double seven years later because markets appreciated. The workload did not change. The complexity did not change. That margin erosion compounds over time and makes internal succession nearly impossible to structure.
- The BBP model: base, bonus, and profit. Splitting compensation into three buckets creates stability through salary, drives individual performance through bonusing, and aligns the team around long-term firm success through profit participation. Eligibility criteria, including fee schedule compliance, training, and client satisfaction scores, determine who gets access to the bonus bucket in a given year.
- Career path design is a capacity strategy. Progressively raising the minimum client tier an advisor is responsible for, and reducing their payout on smaller accounts, creates a natural delegation structure. Founders do not need to recruit expensive lateral hires. They need a junior advisor at the bottom of the org chart so everyone above them can move up.
- Back-test before you roll anything out. Run the new model against what your team actually made last year. If the output looks dramatically different, calibrate the levers before you announce anything. The goal is for the transition to feel like continuity, not a renegotiation.
