RIABiz

News, Vision & Voice for the Advisory Community

RIABiz

What I learned at Harvard Business School that doubled my RIA assets to $3.3 billion in two years

$13,000 and seven days in Boston sparked a sales revolution, a deal-making mindset, a TAMP and an online venture

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 – 5:54 PM by Guest Columnist Brent Brodeski
Admin:
no description available
Brent Brodeski: At $3 billion in AUM we would need to add $450 million per year just to achieve the 15% growth Harvard claims to be table stakes.

Mentioned in this article:

Savant Capital Management
RIA Serving Endowments/Foundations
Top Executive: Brent Brodeski, CEO




Chris

Chris

June 4, 2013 — 4:42 AM
Are you factoring in the market return in AUM growth planning or is the 15% in terms of new assets vs start of year asset levels?

Thanks for sharing.

Any discussion of your eBusiness fee structure vs existing??

Stephen Winks

Stephen Winks

June 4, 2013 — 7:17 PM

The strategy and rationale articulated here by Brent Broadeski is what makes him a leading advisor in the industry, a distinction only a very few advisors can share. The technical competency accorded by his CPA training, in concert with his proactive management of his value proposition, professional standing, margins and growth trajectory make Savant a powerful model to emulate as none of these distinctions is afforded by roll-ups.

Of course, scale is so important in this calculus. The new growth model in advisory services might focus on professional standing and margins at the advisor level, not possible in a brokerage format.

At last a pure advisory alternative that is more substantive than the usual hyperbole.

SCW

Noah

Noah

June 5, 2013 — 2:44 PM

Thanks for sharing your valuable experiences.

Elmer Rich III

Elmer Rich III

June 5, 2013 — 9:19 PM

Very nice piece. Will have to study it over the w/e. Few thoughts.

- Is 15% constant dollar?

- Is profitability a factor? Certainly money management is, by far, the most profitable professional kind of practice. Maybe doctors as well.

- Is that too conservative? What about increasing costs and new overhead, etc. If this is for staying in place? What then would real growth be?

- How about market share measures? If the market is growing, is that a multiplier?

We have seen good research that acquisition is a far more effective way to increase share. There are some good studies with contrarian negative findings on organic growth. Since they don’t fit accepted wisdom, they are ignored. Check out the book — The Granularity of Growth.

Is an “Eat what you kill” strategy of distributed selling optimal given different skill sets?

Bottom line, we just don’t know really. There is no data and less study of the business aspects of our business. But, that is true for many other industries and our business is very new.

More comments after the w/e.

Mark Nagle

Mark Nagle

July 18, 2013 — 12:50 AM

Brilliant stuff Brent – Thank you for sharing your experiences, this is precisely the reason our business www.treystawealth.com.au visits the US and meets with great practices every couple of years. Excellent learning content that continues to drive our businesses forward today.

Stephen Winks

Stephen Winks

December 14, 2017 — 8:10 PM
Elmer, Acquisitions for the sake of AUM without compatibility of value proposition makes scale not possible and garners a significantly lower valuation multiple. SCW

RIABiz Directory

The Industry Sourcebook for RIAs

   |    LISTING


RIABiz Directory sponsored by:

Directory Sponsor Logo