The decision

Two exits, modeled side by side

Most advisors compare a firm program against selling a practice by putting two headline numbers next to each other. The two numbers are not comparable. One is a percentage of trailing production, paid over several years, conditional on someone else retaining your clients. The other is a price for an asset, structured across cash, notes and contingent consideration. Setting them side by side without adjusting for any of that is how advisors talk themselves into the easier decision.

Compared properly, the answer is usually clear. And it is usually decided by one variable that has nothing to do with either number.

The four inputs that decide it

Runway — how many years until you want to be out

The most determinative input by a wide margin, and the one advisors treat as fixed background rather than as the deciding factor. Converting to ownership needs time to rebuild and then grow. If the runway is not there, the rest of the analysis is academic.

Trailing production or revenue

The base both paths scale from. Use the same figure on both sides — a program quoted on gross production and a sale quoted on revenue are not the same denominator, and mixing them up flatters one side substantially.

The retention assumption you actually believe

How much of the book survives a transition. This is the input advisors apply to one side of the comparison and not the other, which is the most common way the model comes out wrong. It belongs on both sides.

The cost of getting from here to there

For the program: nothing, you are already eligible. For conversion: a period at a lower payout rate, real build and compliance costs, and the clients who decline to follow. That is the honest price of the second path and it belongs in the model, not in a footnote.

Path A — negotiate the program well

The product here is certainty. You name an internal successor, commit to a transition period, and receive staged payments after you leave. There is one bid because there is only one party able to transfer the asset.

What is genuinely negotiable is timing, the length of the transition, and — most consequentially — who the successor is. What is almost never negotiable is the formula. Advisors routinely spend their leverage arguing about the percentage and accept whatever is offered on the three terms that were actually available to them.

Understand also that the conditions outlive the payments. Restrictions on competing, soliciting, and sometimes on remaining registered at all typically run for the life of the payout and beyond. You are selling your next chapter along with the book.

Path B — convert, then sell something you own

Converting to independence changes what you are holding. The pool of buyers goes from one to many. The price is set by a market instead of a formula. Structure becomes negotiable, which matters more than the headline figure — how much is cash, how much is a note, and how much is contingent on retention you no longer control.

It also costs years and money, and there is a period in the middle where your income is lower and the decision looks like a mistake. That period is real, and it is where most people who start this abandon it.

The runway test

This is the cut that decides most cases before any arithmetic happens.

Under about three years out

Path A, nearly always. There is not enough time to rebuild and grow before you need liquidity, and a rushed conversion destroys more value than a well-negotiated program leaves on the table. Spend the effort on the successor and the timing instead.

Roughly eight to ten years or more

Path B is genuinely available, and it is usually the larger number by a margin that is not close. This is also the group least likely to have heard it framed as a choice, because nobody in the room at year eight has any reason to raise it.

Somewhere in between

Genuinely open, and it turns on things only you know: how fast the book is growing, how much of it is portable rather than institutional, and your appetite for operating a business instead of practicing inside one.

These are windows for thinking, not thresholds. They are a way to work out which conversation you should be having — not a prediction about your outcome. Nothing on this page is a promise about what either path will pay you.

Five things the comparison usually gets wrong

Attrition applied to one side only. Advisors model client loss carefully on the conversion path and then assume the program pays in full. Most programs are retention-linked. Apply the same haircut to both or the comparison means nothing.

Leaving out the payout dip. The conversion path has a trough. Omitting it makes Path B look better than it is, and discovering it midway is why people quit halfway and end up with the worst of both.

Forgetting the restrictions outlive the money. A program that pays over six years may restrict you for longer than that. If you intend to do anything else afterward, that is a cost.

Treating the formula as negotiable and the timing as fixed. It is the other way round. This single inversion probably costs more advisors more money than any other item on this page.

Comparing a gross percentage to a net price. A percentage of production and a price for a business are different units. Convert both to what actually reaches you, after tax and after time.

A framework you can fill in

Put your own figures in the blank cells and the comparison stops being a matter of opinion. The rows already filled in do not change from advisor to advisor — those are structural.

Fill in for bothFirm programOwned-practice sale
What the number is calculated onTrailing production, per the firm’s formulaEnterprise value of a business you own
Who sets the priceThe firm. The formula is rarely negotiableA market of competing buyers
How many bids you receiveOneAs many as you run a process for
Gross before conditionsyour numberyour number
Retention haircut you actually believeApplies — most programs are retention-linkedApplies — buyers price consent and attrition risk
Years until you are fully paidyour numberyour number
Present value at your own discount rateyour numberyour number
What restricts you after you exitNo competing, no soliciting, sometimes no registrationNegotiated — a price term, not a condition of payment
Who carries the risk if clients leaveYou. The payout follows retentionShared, depending how much sits in the earnout
What you own when it is finishedNothing. The relationship was the firm’sNothing — but you sold something that was yours
Cost to get from here to thereNothing. You are already eligibleThe payout dip, the build cost, the clients who do not follow

If the two present values land close together, the tiebreaker is not financial. It is whether you want to spend your remaining working years operating a business or practicing inside someone else’s.

What we can and cannot help with

We can lay out the decision, the trade-offs, and the questions to ask. We can model the value of the owned-practice side, and we can introduce you to buyers when you have something to sell — at no cost to you, ever.

We cannot choose your custodian, design your compliance program, or tell you which platform or aggregator to join. That is specialist work, it depends entirely on your circumstances, and depending on how it is framed and paid for it can require registrations we do not hold. When you reach that point we will say so and point you at people who do it for a living, rather than improvising.

Not legal, tax, or investment advice. Program terms, restrictive covenants and tax treatment are specific to your firm and your situation. Model this with your own accountant and have counsel read anything before you sign it.

Put a number on the second path

The owned-practice side of this comparison is the half you cannot estimate from memory. Our sister resource models it confidentially in about a minute — no account, no listing, no obligation.

Run the valuation →  ·  Talk it through with someone →