Large teams may draw the most attention in recruiting, but home offices have good reason to court solo advisors and two-advisor firms as well. Smaller practices can offer faster integration, lower complexity and easier alignment, even if recruiting them one by one may appear inefficient at first glance.
At the same time, solo and duo advisors often approach a move differently than larger practices. They may be looking for efficiency, outsourced support and a partner that can help accelerate growth, but they are also sensitive to tradeoffs involving autonomy, brand identity and operational independence.
“Ultimately, the recruitment process should focus less on headcount and more on growth ambition, business model needs, and long-term strategic goals,” said Jodie Papike, CEO and Managing Partner of Cross-Search.
What Advisors Want
Yes, they want to join a home office that can accelerate growth. But how that happens is crucial.
“Solos and duos are buying time and sanity,” said Jason Inglis, Chief Development Officer at Trilogy Financial. “It’s more personal, time-sensitive and directly tied to lifestyle and succession considerations. They want fewer headaches and a future with more certainty. It tends to be visceral: ‘Will this make my life better?’ Not, ‘Does this build a platform?’”
Said Louis Diamond, CEO of Diamond Consultants: “Smaller practices often prioritize efficiency. They tend to value streamlined technology, integrated platforms and access to outsourced support such as fractional admin, CFO, compliance or marketing services to avoid adding fixed overhead while still scaling. Often, smaller teams prioritize an outsourced investment solution as well.”
“When advisors wear multiple hats, due diligence can suffer,” Diamond said. “They may lack time for deep analysis or extend the process due to bandwidth constraints. Larger teams often have specialists, such as portfolio managers or planning directors, who ask more nuanced questions a generalist leader might overlook.”
Inglis said solo and duo advisors may also underestimate topics such as governance and cultural fit.
“Larger teams are more likely to pressure-test transition support, capital alignment, and post-close economics,” he said. “Solos and duos may also overlook subtle cultural or governance dynamics (the fine print) until it becomes their problem … usually about six months post-transition.”
These practices also may want to preserve control over their business and identity. So “tucking” them into larger teams at another firm carries both risks and rewards.
“The decision to tuck into a larger team typically comes down to three primary factors: past experience, level of desire for autonomy, and current needs,” Papike said. “A team’s past experiences with partnerships or integrations often shape their openness to a tuck-in. If they have had positive outcomes in similar business relationships, they may be more inclined to view it as a viable option.”
“Also, the level of control the team is willing to give up plays a significant role,” she said. “Tucking into a larger group usually involves some tradeoffs in decision-making authority, brand identity or operational independence.”
What Recruiters Want
It may seem inefficient for firms to recruit one- or two-person shops. But the experts see advantages.
“They’re typically high-conviction decision makers, which shortens recruiting cycles,” Inglis said. “Integration is faster, complexity is lower, and cultural adoption tends to be stronger.”
“These teams also punch above their weight in loyalty and advocacy, often becoming long-term partners and referral sources,” he said. “When supported well, they become evangelists and compound into highly profitable, durable relationships.”
Said Papike: “It’s also important to keep in mind a solo advisor can oftentimes manage a book of business the same size as a multi-team can. The differentiator can be the solo practitioner may have a larger support staff that helps to grow the business.”
Diamond said solo and duo firms are worth recruiting.
“Every firm wants larger teams, but smaller ones help diversify transition risk, much like a portfolio,” he said. “With fewer decision makers, alignment is often easier and transitions can move faster. Economically, smaller teams may also be more profitable since grids and fee concessions are typically less aggressive than with large enterprise teams.”
How Advisors Should Prepare For Recruiters
“The preparation is no different than for larger teams,” Diamond said. “Start with clarity on long-term goals, motivations, and non-negotiables. Then invest time in education before taking meetings. Understanding the landscape, economics, and trade-offs upfront leads to more efficient conversations and better long-term outcomes.”
Papike agrees.
“Conducting thorough due diligence and thoughtfully assessing a firm’s strengths and weaknesses does not inherently require a large headcount or expertise in a certain area of the business,” she said. “Smaller teams often bring a high level of focus, accountability, and direct involvement that can be just as effective, if not more so, than a more segmented approach.”
Said Inglis: “Get clear on non-negotiables. Is it autonomy, economics, client experience or future succession? Then clean up your data, simplify your stack, workflows and custodial complexity to preserve optionality. Most importantly, get serious and define the end state you want. Most mistakes happen when fatigue masquerades as strategy. Recruiting goes better when you’re running toward a future, not away from your present.”
Thomas Lee, Senior Editor and Staff Writer for Wealth Solutions Report, can be reached at thomas.lee@wealthsolutionsreport.com.
