I decided recently to start a career as a financial advisor and am currently working on my Series 65 and 63. I also have an internship lined up in a few months which will provide me sponsorship for the Series 7 and almost definitely lead to a position as an advisor with the firm. The way this firm works is that you're technically an independent contractor and although there are no benefits or retirement, you keep 75% of the commissions you make. Thus, it can be very profitable if you're good.
I am wondering if it would be a better route to get hired by a bank and work for them instead. From what I understand, it may be easier to start out as this because the bank will provide some of your leads for you by way of their customers, but I believe you still need to go out and get clients yourself. I also think banks may provide a base salary unlike firms.
So let me see if I have this right.
Firm:
No base salary.
Earnings come from commission 100%
Higher chance of failure.
Higher reward?
Better learning experience if I want to start my own small firm one day.
Bank:
Safer. Base salary on top of commissions.
Higher chance of success.
Lower reward?
Not as good of a learning experience towards opening up my own firm due to having many leads provided for me.
Can someone tell me if I'm on the right track here?
Submitted February 26, 2017 at 12:50AM by swissarm http://ift.tt/2miQMm6
