Well, honestly, private equity acquisitions are ramping up in lots of industries, but let’s just focus on our space for now.

Bain Capital and Carlyle are going head-to-head to acquire Wealth Enhancement Group in a deal that could value the RIA giant at $7 billion, according to the Financial Times. Currently owned by Onex and TA Associates, Wealth Enhancement serves 66,000 households and manages roughly $160 billion in assets. It’s the latest headline deal in private equity’s relentless expansion into wealth management. PE buyers completed nine RIA transactions in the first half of the year, putting them on track to surpass 2025’s total of 14, per the latest DeVoe report. But as valuations soar, some advisors are asking critical questions: Why is PE money continuing to flow into the RIA channels, and what does it mean for independent advisors and their clients?

“Whenever too much money crowds into one area, I start to wonder whether the emphasis shifts from improving the client experience to engineering the next transaction,” said Patrick Huey, owner of Victory Independent Planning.

What’s the Deal?

Unlike traditional buyouts, which typically cut costs and flip assets within three to five years, wealth management acquirers are playing a longer game. RIAs offer predictable fee structures and sticky client bases. The RIA model has proven lucrative. Stone Point Capital bought a majority stake in Focus Financial Partners in 2017 at a $2 billion valuation; by 2023, Clayton, Dubilier & Rice acquired it for $7 billion. “If previous owners had lost money on acquisitions, secondary buyouts would not occur at such high values,” said Allen Darby, CEO of Alaris Acquisitions.

PE’s focus has shifted almost exclusively to acquiring larger RIAs, he added. “The early days were easy in retrospect, buying small RIA firms at low multiples and then rolling them into larger platforms where you could trade them for mid-teens multiples,” he told Advisor Upside. Moving forward, winning firms will need to drive true organic growth, not just rely on acquisition volume.

Still, the momentum hasn’t slowed down:

• Activity from mega-sellers, firms with more than $5 billion in AUM, is largely being driven by private equity firms and minority investors, which completed 17 of the 30 mega-seller transactions year-to-date, per the DeVoe report.
• Among top acquirers — including Hightower, Beacon Pointe and Cerity — Savant is notably the only firm that remains primarily employee-owned.

Succession Impossible. For sellers, PE backing provides tech, scale and an answer to the industry’s worst headache: succession planning. “The biggest beneficiaries of private equity are advisors close to retirement who need liquidity,” says Michael Espinosa, president of TrueNorth Retire, adding that younger advisors can often buy into these deals to secure firm equity as well.

Yet, capital carries concessions. “The business can start to feel more corporate and less personal,” Huey warned. “The risk is running the practice for enterprise value rather than client intimacy.”

Who says FINRA can’t take constructive criticism?

The self-regulatory organization has already implemented a number of changes aligned with a June 30 report commissioned to help bring common-sense improvements to its enforcement program. Other major changes could be coming soon, according to Brian Rubin, former SEC enforcement counsel and current co-head at Eversheds Sutherland. The full report contains 24 additional proposals that touch on a broad set of governance, transparency, due process, coordination and operational efficiency issues identified within FINRA’s enforcement department. If all or most of them are implemented, it could make advisors’ lives significantly easier when it comes to navigating compliance issues.

“My guess is that virtually all of the recommendations will be enacted to some degree,” Rubin told Advisor Upside. “The goal is to get procedural issues out of the way so that the parties involved in an investigation can really focus on whether there are violations happening and whether firms or individuals should be sanctioned for them.”

What Has and Could Change

FINRA’s executive vice president of enforcement Bill St. Louis first announced an initial set of reforms in March that set the stage for the new report. They established:

• Introductory meetings at the time of initial referral for enforcement investigations.
• Mandatory 90-day investigation status updates.
• Pre-enforcement investigative findings meetings and a new self-reporting pilot program, among other changes.

These were all positive developments, according to Rubin, and the 24 new recommendations build on them from various directions. One recommendation, for example, discourages the involvement of identifiable enforcement staff during pre-referral investigations or routine examinations, which was found by investigators to frequently mislead those being reviewed into thinking they were in fact already being investigated. That perception, in turn, has made it more difficult to reach collaborative, non-enforcement resolutions.

Another recommendation is that FINRA adopt a procedural mechanism allowing member firms to challenge Rule 8210 information requests perceived to be inappropriate in scope or unreasonably burdensome. Yet another highlights that the organization has not been constrained by a formal limitations period and has frequently brought cases involving conduct occurring more than five years earlier, which the report suggests as a self-imposed statute of limitations.

“There have been cases where FINRA has looked back 10 years,” Rubin said. “It’s hard to accurately remember what happened five years ago, let alone 10. Virtually all other legal processes have some statute of limitations.”

The Bottom Line. Regardless of how many recommendations FINRA formally adopts, Rubin said, the report is still likely to influence FINRA investigations and enforcement matters in the near term. Firms that evaluate their enforcement preparedness in light of its findings may be better positioned to respond effectively throughout the enforcement process.

Clients may have skeletons in their closet … along with a few maxed-out credit cards.

Buying a home is one of the biggest financial decisions a couple will ever make. But taking that leap doesn’t guarantee partners know everything about each other. One in 5 people who bought a home with a partner hide spending from them, according to a report from Clever Real Estate, a property agent-matching service. Furthermore, nearly a third of buyers discovered major financial surprises about their partners after purchasing a home, ranging from a lack of savings to hidden credit card debt. Financial secrecy is a recurring issue advisors must help clients navigate.

“While we aren’t licensed therapists, good financial planning involves many of the same skills,” said Easton Price, CFP at Prosperity Wealth Planning. “My role isn’t to judge or interrogate either spouse. It’s to explain that an accurate plan requires complete information, and hidden spending undermines shared goals, cash-flow projections and trust.”

What Are You Hiding?

Everyone deserves personal financial privacy; not every dinner out requires joint approval. But when finances are pooled, intentionally hiding major household decisions creates serious friction. Helping clients find a healthy middle ground requires a non-judgmental approach that ensures both partners feel comfortable and heard.

“There shouldn’t be transactions where someone feels ashamed or afraid to show their partner,” said Gitanjali Kumar, founder of Worthique. She noted cases where partners continued secret spending even after joint card access was restricted. “At that point, it’s no longer about independence … it’s financially irresponsible behavior affecting the household.”

According to the report, financial secrecy shows up in several ways:

• Some 20% of secrecy-prone home buyers hid household-related costs, while 10% keep a secret account, although that figure surged to 30% among unmarried couples.
• Just 8% hid a single purchase of $1,000 or more.

Kate Feeney, vice president of Summit Place Financial Advisors, said it’s not a common issue, but she does always like to meet with both partners to avoid those scenarios before they ever get started. “It’s generally considered financial infidelity, and it can have significant emotional and financial consequences.”