The State Of Affairs At Raymond James Independence Platform

Why the Semi-Independent Model Is Fading — And Why Full, Multi-Custodial Independence Is Becoming Advisor’s Preferred  Path Forward

Executive Summary

For decades, semi-independent platforms like Raymond James RJFS, FiNet, and Ameriprise 1099 gave advisors an attractive bridge away from the wirehouse world. These models offered some autonomy, stronger economics and brand control along with the infrastructure of a large financial institution.

But the landscape has changed.

Open-architecture custody, modern RIA technology, scalable operating models, and soaring private-equity investment have redefined what “independence” means. Fully independent, multi-custodial RIAs now deliver better economics, superior technology, higher enterprise value, greater control, and more competitive optionality than any semi-independent chassis can match.

This white paper traces the evolution of Raymond James’s platforms (RJFS → RCS), examines the competitive challenges facing 1099 advisors embedded inside bank ecosystems, and demonstrates why the future belongs to full independence — with multi-custodian choice, including Raymond James custodians— supported by leading platforms such as NewEdge, Apollon, One Seven and many others.

1. The Legacy Appeal of RJFS and the Semi-Independent Model

RJFS Was Once a Premier Gateway to Independence

Raymond James’s RJFS platform was long viewed as the ideal first step for advisors seeking greater control. It allowed:

• Personal brand creation
• Business ownership via a 1099 structure
• Access to the large Raymond James investment and banking platform
• High-quality products and services
• Attractive economics, often ~90% net operating income before local expenses

For many years, this was a true “win-win”: flexibility, economics, and support under one roof.

2. The Structural Limitation: The Semi-Independent Illusion

RJFS, FiNet, and Ameriprise 1099 Are Built on W-2 Chassis

Despite their independent packaging, these platforms sit atop the same infrastructure designed for W-2 advisors receiving payouts of 50% or less. The semi-independent channel is larger in some cases in terms of advisors, but not the profit center for their wealth division. The core economic engine remains the W-2 employee model.

And here is the crucial fact: There is no meaningful difference in products, services, legal, compliance or technology between the W-2 and 1099 channels.

This is why they are “semi-independent.” Advisors may own their business on paper, but they remain captive to:

• The firm’s custodian
• The firm’s technology stack
• The firm’s compliance
• The firm’s legal framework
• The firm’s banking and product menu

The only material advantage is the 1099 tax structure — and even that advantage is narrowing as costs climb. 

 3. The Competitive Crisis Facing Semi-Independent 1099 Advisors

The market has evolved dramatically. Today, advisors on these 1099 platforms face competitive disadvantages on almost every dimension.

3.1 Open-Architecture Custody

Fully independent advisors can work with:

• Schwab
• Fidelity
• Pershing
• Goldman Sachs
• Raymond James (via third parties)

This gives independents a far broader investment universe, better lending, more competitive pricing, and more robust trading and reporting options.

Semi-independent advisors are tied to one custodian with a constrained offering.

3.2 Bank-Level Compliance Designed for the Lowest Common Denominator

Bank compliance is built to protect the institution from the least sophisticated advisor. As a result, even high-end advisory teams face:

• Marketing restrictions
• Product limitations
• Slow approvals
• Legal barriers
• Constraints on alternatives, customized strategies, and private investments

In true independence, compliance is built to support enterprise-level practices, not constrain them.

 

3.3 Rising Operating Costs

Semi-independent 1099 advisors find their margins squeezed as firms pass on:

• Technology costs
• Platform fees
• Service charges
• Regulatory overhead
• Administrative expenses

In contrast, fully independent RIAs typically operate at an all-in cost of roughly 10-12% , giving them dramatically more margin to reinvest in staff, service, and growth.

3.4 Legacy Technology Built for a Wirehouse World

The technology available inside semi-independent ecosystems remains anchored to legacy one-size-fits-all systems designed for $500K producers serving $500K clients.

The result:

• Outdated CRMs
• Clunky reporting
• Inadequate client portals
• No true multi-custodian integration
• Slow data synchronization
• Limited alternative investment workflows

Independent RIAs benefit from modern, integrated, enterprise-grade technology that is impossible to replicate inside bank ecosystems.

3.5 Valuation Penalties

Perhaps the most financially damaging issue:

Businesses on captive, single-custodian, outdated platforms are worth less.

Enterprise values rise dramatically when teams:

• Control their technology
• Control their custodians
• Control their processes
• Control their compliance
• Control their brand
• Can participate in mergers, acquisitions, and capital events

Private equity capital is pouring into RIAs, but Raymond James does not allow external private equity investments in their advisor businesses, suppressing valuations for advisors on its captive platforms.

4. Raymond James’s Attempted Solution — RCS — And Why It Isn’t Working

Raymond James offers RCS, a fully independent custodian, as its solution to these structural issues. On paper, RCS appears to offer freedom.

In reality, it introduces a new set of challenges.

4.1 Easy for Clients — Difficult for Advisors

Client transitions into RCS are seamless.

Advisor operations inside RCS are not.

4.2 RCS Is Not Part of the RJ Ecosystem

Raymond James’s institutional priority is clear:

• ~10,000 advisors in the W-2 and 1099 channels
• These are the most profitable segments
• These segments receive the operational, technology, and service priority

RCS advisors sit outside this ecosystem — and the service model reflects that.

4.3 Technology Still Points Back to Raymond James

Even in RCS, critical systems and investment tools still “speak native Raymond James.” They do not connect with outside custodians such as Schwab, Fidelity, Pershing and Goldman Sachs.

As a result:

• CRMs struggle to sync.
• Client portals are inconsistent.
• Integrations break.
• Service tickets lag.
• Data mapping is fragile.

Independence is only half-delivered.

4.4 The Market Is Speaking

The most telling metric:

Advisors are steadily moving from RJFS direct to full independence. Those who move from RJFS→ to RCS are increasingly moving completely to full independence.

When advisors create their own RIAs, Raymond James becomes one of the least chosen custodians — behind Schwab, Fidelity, Pershing, and Goldman Sachs.

5. The Modern Solution: Fully Independent, Multi-Custodial, Enterprise-Grade RIAs

The best model for elite advisory teams today is unequivocal:

Full independence with open multi-custody — including Raymond James.

This delivers:

• Total freedom
• Leading-edge technology
• Integration across CRM, reporting, billing, trading, and custodians
• Enterprise-class compliance
• Low-cost operating structure (~10%)
• Access to PE partnerships, recruitment, and inorganic growth
• Dramatically higher valuations
• Ability to acquire, merge, recruit, and scale

It is independence without constraint — the model the top firms are now choosing.

6. Platforms Delivering the “Best of All Worlds”: NewEdge, Apollon, One7, and Others

Many Raymond James advisors prefer to have little to no disruption when transitioning to full independence. They can retain the exact transfer of investment positions with ease without client disruption. A new generation of RIA platforms now combines:

• Multi-custody flexibility
• Modern technology
• Full independence
• Strong economics
• Turnkey support
• Access to capital
• M&A pathways
• Outsourced operations
• Freedom to select CRM, reporting, and portfolio tools

These platforms include:

• NewEdge Advisors
• Apollon Wealth
• OneSeven
• Tru-Independence/Sanctuary
• And other advanced RIA frameworks emerging nationwide
• Conclusion: Independence Has Evolved — And Advisors Must Evolve With It

Semi-independent platforms were once the future.

Today, they are the past. Advisors are speaking loudly with record moves.

The winning model in 2025 and beyond is:

Full Independence + Multi-Custody + Modern Technology + Scalable Support + Enterprise Value Creation

Advisors no longer need to choose between freedom and support — the best platforms now deliver both.

And for the first time, advisors can access Raymond James as a custodian without being confined to Raymond James’s ecosystem, technology, or compliance restrictions.

The future of wealth management is clear:

True independence, multi-custodian choice, and enterprise ownership are now the ultimate competitive advantages.