Moderna Valuation a Concern for JP Morgan

Moderna (MRNA) has surged over 300% since the start of the year. Analysts at JP Morgan, concerned about the company’s valuation, have downgraded the stock to neutral.

Other industry experts agree. Mani Faroohar, a top analyst at SVB Leerink, outlined a scenario this week where Moderna may drop to as little as $19 a share by the end of the year. He called their current valuation of $32 billion “unappealing” when evaluating risk versus reward.

The main area of concern is whether or not the smaller Moderna can compete against pharma giants like AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Despite receiving $483 million in Covid-19 funding from the federal government, Moderna president Dr. Stephen Hoge refuses to discuss pricing.

“We will not sell it at cost,” Hoge stated at a hearing before the House energy committee this week. He may not have a choice. The NIH is claiming intellectual property rights due the government’s investment into the vaccine’s development. They want it at or below cost.

Moderna has never successfully brought an approved product to the market. Their vaccine is considered one of the frontrunners in the race due to positive clinical trials, but there’s still a long road ahead. Maneuvering for profit may not be the best approach right now.

Kolanovic: Market not Properly Pricing Covid-19 Surge or 2020 Election

In other news, Marko Kolanovic, JP Morgan’s global head of macro quantitative and derivatives research, has released a report on pricing anomalies during the Covid-19 surge. It attempts to explain why value stocks are vastly underbought while growth stocks continue to thrive.

“Investors are worried about the surge in Covid-19 infections,” Kolanovic stated. “The possible election of former VP Joe Biden also raises concerns about long-term value investments.”

The study shows that buyers are opting for growth stocks while the market is still in an uptrend. Meanwhile, Aroon and momentum indicators are driving traders away from value positions. It’s possible that the trend may reverse after the election, depending on results.

Pfizer Signs $1.5 Million Vaccine Deal with Pentagon

The US Department of Health and Human Services announced a $1.95 billion deal to buy 100 million doses of a Covid-19 vaccine being developed by Pfizer and their German-based partner BioNTech. The deal is dependent on the completion of successful clinical trials and FDA approval.

BioNTech announced a share sale on Tuesday to raise cash so that Pfizer can become a shareholder in their company. Their current market cap is $21 billion.

JP Morgan, along with Bank of America, and Berenberg, is organizing the deal.

In January of this year, Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer Inc, was a fireside chat speaker at JP Morgan’s Healthcare Conference in San Francisco. At the time, he claimed that his company was “underappreciated” and touted their recent and upcoming successes.

Stephane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, was not on the speakers’ list for the conference. Vaccine development wasn’t on the agenda. US consumer drug pricing was a hot topic.

AstraZeneca, formerly considered a frontrunner in the vaccine race, released data on their clinical trials this week. Analyst Ronny Gal from Bernstein said it “failed to impress.” Peter Wellford at Jefferies claimed the share price move was “overdone.”

It looks like a two-horse race. JP Morgan appears to be betting on Pfizer.

 

Merrill Lynch Shuffles Deck Chairs In NYC; Names New Market Head But Eliminates Another Complex

Merrill Lynch keeps shrinking. Across the US ‘real’ advisor headcount (not BofA bank branch advisors and Merrill EDGE hires) has been in decline since 2010, a decades-long run, and regions, complexes, and markets have shrunk as well. Another example of this was just announced in the financial capital of the world – New York City.

In a memo sent to advisors and staff a former UBS manager was named as the new ‘market executive’ in the firms Rockefeller Center branch; a branch known to be a bellwether for the BofA/Merrill brand. Mr. Correa was hired last year away from UBS. Mr. Correa transfers over from Merrill’s Park Ave branch and replaces the interim market executive Courtney McCarthy. The moves were announced by the Fifth Ave complex manager Matthew Grossman.

Also discussed in the memo from Mr. Grossman, besides the announcement of Mr. Correa’s arrival, was the shuttering of the Manhattan East complex that Mr. Correa had just left. That complex would be merged with the Fifth Ave complex and be redubbed Manhattan Central. Is anyone else’s head spinning??

The upshot is that Merrill Lynch is consolidating complexes, reducing manager headcount, and dealing with large-scale departures in locations that used to be the envy of every wealth management brand in the world. Now, it is nothing more than the shuffling of deck chairs to satisfy the bean counters at Bank of America. Profitability, costs, associated bank product sales, loans, and household quotas matter more than the brand and the people that work within it. Another adjustment to a flagship complex (shutting it down completely) is just more proof of that.

So to recap, the Rock Center complex was shut down, merged with Manhattan East, named Ken Correa the new ‘market executive’, but is managed by Matthew Grossman, while the former interim ‘market executive’ Courtney McCarthy is demoted to Associate Market Manager. Got it? Good.

 

Morgan Stanley Shines; Latest Quarterly Results Affirms That MS Is Leading In Wealth Management

Morgan Stanley is the kind of brand that elicits all sorts of emotions and responses from advisors across the spectrum. At any point in the past decade, they’ve played the role of hero and villain several times. If you’re a legacy Smith Barney broker you aren’t a fan, but if you’re a legacy Morgan Stanley broker you feel differently. But generally, the proof of a firm’s overall strength is found in its recruiting.

So what is the trend with Morgan Stanley currently? Beyond the commentary about their exit from the protocol (which we don’t like, but it remains a reality) Morgan Stanley is as strong a brand with large teams and advisors as exists in wealth management today. Some of the industry’s biggest teams have moved to MS in the past year while the firm has consistently announced historically low attrition rates. And the reason has to do with leadership and results.

Whatever you think of the ‘big box’ wirehouse model, Morgan Stanley has basically perfected it. Yes, there are nuanced issues that anyone can point at that may be undesirable, but some of the wisest teams we know have taken their talents to Morgan Stanley. Those ‘smart’ teams point to the true depth and breadth of serving HNW and UHNW clients with the broadest spectrum of products and services in the industry. To be clearly summarized: there is still a place in wealth management where the logo and brand on your business card matter.

As per leadership at the firm and their latest quarterly results, they crushed it:

Morgan Stanley reported adjusted EPS of $1.96 on $13.4 billion in revenue. Both numbers exceeded analyst expectations of $1.12 and $10.3 billion, respectively. Revenue was up 30% from a year ago.

That kind of outperformance in the midst of a pandemic and market chaos goes to leadership and execution. Again, the kind of attributes that matter to big teams.

And to recruiting, Morgan Stanley remains ultra-aggressive in pursuing ‘Tier 1’ players. We’ve found that they won’t be outbid for large, quality teams. Add that reality to their brand recognition and balance sheet/quarterly results – maybe they should be considered as the new and improved ‘thundering herd’.

 

Questions Abound over Santomassimo hire at Wells Fargo

The much-beleaguered Wells Fargo announced a new hire this morning. Mike Santomassimo,
formerly of BNY Mellon, will be taking over the role of CFO, replacing John Shrewsbury, who is
retiring in September. Santomassimo will report directly to CEO Charlie Scharf.

Wells Fargo stock (WFC), down 54% year-to-date, immediately jumped 5.61% in early morning
trading after the news broke. The Aroon indicator is still down trending.

Is this the final piece of the restructuring that was announced back in February or a new
beginning? Santomassimo brings twenty years of experience to the position. That includes four
years at BNY Mellon and eleven years in financial leadership roles at JP Morgan.

CEO Charlie Scharf, just nine months into his role at Wells Fargo, describes his new hire as “a
strategic-minded CFO with success in building and leading global finance teams that help drive
business improvement.” That statement suggests additional changes are coming.

Scharf Shifts Wells Fargo Power Balance to East Coast

In an attempt to reverse a downward spiral caused by the 2016 fake accounts scandal,
organizational restructuring was announced by Wells Fargo earlier this year on February 11th. It
was essentially a personnel shuffle, with various CEOs moving to new positions.

The only new executive hire during the restructuring was Mike Weinbach, former CEO of Chase
Home Lending at JP Morgan Chase. He is now CEO of Consumer Lending at Wells Fargo.

Prior to the restructuring, Charlie Scharf had hired mainly outsiders to separate the bank from
its previous history. On June 18th, he reached outside again and brought in Barry Sommers,
formerly of JP Morgan Chase, to be the CEO of Wealth & Investment Management.

Scharf is a former CEO of BNY Mellon and former CEO of Retail Financial Services at JP Morgan
Chase, so the sources for his new hires are not surprising. The Santomassimo move positions the top three Wells Fargo executives in New York. The company is based in San Francisco.

Consolidation Rumors Continue to Surface

A rumor surfaced in May that Wells Fargo might be contemplating a merger with New York-
based banking giant Goldman Sachs. With a fed-imposed asset cap of $2 trillion still hovering
over their heads, the deal is unlikely to happen, but the rumors are starting to resurface.

Wells Fargo owns more than 10% of all bank deposits in the United States. Goldman Sachs
could add $1.1 trillion to its balance sheet. With both banks tanking in the stock market, it
might be a survival move that’s being seriously looked at.

Goldman’s CFO, Stephen Scherr, has openly stated that the bank would be open to acquisitions
if they can boost their current projects. JP Morgan, where Wells Fargo’s new executive team
originally hails from, has always believed that partnerships can improve customer service.

Assuming that federal regulations are eased after the Coronavirus crisis, is the Santomassimo
hire at Wells Fargo the final move before making a consolidation deal? Or is the beginning of a
new chapter for the struggling bank? Pay close attention to how this plays out.

 

As COVID Cases Surge, so Does Investor Interest in Biotechnology

While local administrations return to the drawing board to reform their timelines, financial professionals stay the course in eyeing biotechnology as the emblematic ‘hand’ that will control the speed in which the valve is opened or closed. In this TrackStar Insights edition of Advisors in Focus, we’ll reveal what fund sectors and stocks are being researched in concert with the rapid directional changes in state governance.

Below are the five most-researched ETF categories by financial advisors this week (source: TrackStarIQ):

  • Materials
  • Technology
  • Health & Biotech
  • Oil & Gas
  • Financials

The Health and Biotech sector saw a 22.5% lift in advisor engagement from the previous week, as vaccine and drug trial news continues to move markets.

Investors persist in trying to size up the future biotech winners and losers in today’s ever-changing landscape. Taking a deeper dive, the ten stocks that led advisor interest this week within the sector are:

  • Inovio Pharmaceuticals (INO)
  • Kitov Pharma (KTOV)
  • Sorrento Therapeutics (SRNE)
  • Vaxart (VXRT)
  • Novavax (NVAX)
  • Moderna (MRNA)
  • VBI Vaccines (VBIV)
  • iBio (IBIO)
  • Novan (NOVN)
  • Trevena (TRVN)

Individual biotech stocks are known for their volatile nature because share prices rise or fall in reaction to the latest headlines about drug trials or FDA approvals. History has shown that biotech ETFs are also capable of substantial percentage moves in short time frames as well.

Let’s consider two with stellar three-month rallies: one passively managed, and the other actively managed.

SPDR S&P 500 Biotech Fund (XBI)

SPDR S&P 500 Biotech Fund (XBI) is a passive biotech ETF that tracks the S&P Biotechnology Select Industry Index, which consists of 136 stocks currently within the biotechnology segment of the S&P U.S. total market composite index. This ETF was the most researched biotech fund this month based on TrackStarIQ data.

The ETF has $5.2 billion in assets, and shareholders are likely satisfied with recent performance: XBI is up 17.7% YTD and 44.5% in the past three months.

Fast Facts:

Fund assets: $5.2 billion
Number of holdings: 136
YTD Return: 17.7%
Three-month: 44.5%
Top five holdings and portfolio weighting:

  • NVAX – 2.2%
  • NVTA – 2%
  • INO – 1.95%
  • OPK – 1.5%
  • ARWR – 1.4%

Novavax accounts for the largest percentage within the SPDR S&P Biotech Fund and the ticker also ranks in the TrackStarIQ sector’s top ten stocks researched by advisors, along with Inovio.

ARK Genomic Revolution ETF (ARKG)

ARK Genomic Revolution Fund (ARKG) is an actively managed ETF that invests in healthcare, technology, basic materials, or any company that falls within the fund’s investment theme of genomics innovation. While not as well known as XBI, TrackStarIQ rankings suggest that the fund is seeing increased interest by the financial advisor community lately.

In addition, ARKG shares have substantially outperformed passively managed biotech ETFs: surging 55.6% year-to-date and 67% over the past three months.

Fast Facts:

Fund Assets: $1.3 billion
No. of holdings: 38
YTD Return: 55.6%
Three-month: 66.7%
Top five holdings and portfolio weighting:

  • CRSP – 9.4%
  • ILMN – 8.6%
  • NVTA – 8%
  • ARCT – 7%
  • NTLA – 4.2%

The fourth-largest holding in the ARK Genomic Revolution Fund—Arcturus Therapeutics (ARCT)—has rallied 360% in 2020, and the substantial gains in that stock help to explain why the actively managed ETF has easily outperformed passively managed biotech ETFs.

We will continue to monitor activity in this sector as more COVID impact unfolds.

 

During COVID-19 Chaos Big Teams Accelerate Moves To New Firms; Want To Know Why?

If it seems like larger and more frequent recruiting headlines to keep hitting the tape, you are viewing the wealth management landscape correctly. Each and every week hundreds of millions, if not billions, in client assets are filling out asset transfer paperwork on Saturday and Sunday across the country. And there is no slow down in sight.

The wirehouses continue to be hit hardest as advisors are either opting for perceived greener pastures at a rival firm or setting up their own shop as masters of their inside an RIA aggregator of note. The mass exodus remains real and ongoinG, no matter what firm brass at places like UBS and BofA/Merrill Lynch would have you believe.

But we are more interested in why these moves are occurring now…and accelerating in the midst of COVID-19 and historic market volatility. We think the following four dynamics are fueling the recruiting market and have tipped the scales in the question.

  1. Practice valuations and client balances (AUM) are at historic highs.The thought process here is that with client balances at or near all-time highs, annual production levels are bloated in ways the industry has never seen before. T12 numbers and their multipliers are extremely ripe and perfectly situated to capitalize on the next dynamic in this list. Advisors would be well advised to take advantage of the gift that the markets have given them.
  2. Recruiting deals are at all-time highs and almost artificially outsized for big teams.The competition for teams of scale is as fierce as it has ever been, and deals reflect that competition. At both Wells Fargo and First Republic, when including deferred compensation balances and choosing to retire at those firms, the numbers can surpass 500%. Yes, you read that right. Deals are more apt to retreat from these levels than to press much higher – another reason why big teams are hitting the bid.
  3. Expired Deals.Every advisor and team that mattered during the financial crisis has had the deals they signed back in 2010 (either to stay at their firm or in a move to a new firm) expire. Everyone is a free agent and evaluating the best way to play out the rest of their career – both philosophically and by way of monetizing their book. Besides the two firms that exited protocol in UBS and Morgan Stanley, most advisors are completely legally detached from their current firm.
  4. The COVID-19 effect is real and a significant advantage for transitioning to a new firm.At the outset of the pandemic most thought that the chaos and market turbulence would stifle recruiting movement. Just the opposite has been true. Clients that have stayed home from work are more available to discuss moves and sign transition paperwork virtually; while advisors deal with fewer colleagues attempting to keep their clients at the firm they are leaving. In terms of the drama of the first weeks of a transition, COVID-19 has become an easy off-ramp for exiting advisors.

Doing a serious evaluation of the tent that you find yourself under as an advisor is an absolute must right now. With so many deals stretching beyond 300% and production and asset levels at historic highs, big teams will continue to leave. Considering the factors above and the cover for a transition, you should be doing your own evaluation right now.

 

Six High Frequency Indicators For A Continued Recovery

These indicators are mostly for travel and entertainment – some of the sectors that will probably recover very slowly.

The TSA is providing daily travel numbers.

This data shows the daily total traveler throughput from the TSA for 2019 (Blue) and 2020 (Red).

On July 1st there were 626,516 travelers compared to 2,547,889 a year ago.

That is a decline of 75%. There has been a slow steady increase from the bottom, but air travel is still down significantly.

The second graph shows the 7 day average of the year-over-year change in diners as tabulated by OpenTable for the US and several selected cities.

Thanks to OpenTable for providing this restaurant data:

This data is updated through July 4, 2020.

This data is “a sample of restaurants on the OpenTable network across all channels: online reservations, phone reservations, and walk-ins. For year-over-year comparisons by day, we compare to the same day of the week from the same week in the previous year.”

Note that this data is for “only the restaurants that have chosen to reopen in a given market”.

The 7 day average for New York is still off 81%.

Florida is only down 57% YoY, but declining recently. Note that dining seems to be declining in many areas (probably due to the recent surge in COVID cases).

This data shows the domestic box office for each week (red) and the maximum and minimum for the previous four years. Data is from BoxOfficeMojo through July 2nd.

Note that the data is usually noisy week-to-week and depends on when blockbusters are released.

Movie ticket sales have picked up slightly from the bottom, but are still under $1 million per week (compared to usually around $300 million per week), and ticket sales have essentially been at zero for fifteen weeks.

Most movie theaters are closed all across the country, and will probably reopen slowly (probably with limited seating at first).

The following graph shows the seasonal pattern for the hotel occupancy rate using the four-week average.

The red line is for 2020, dash light blue is 2019, blue is the median, and black is for 2009 (the worst year probably since the Great Depression for hotels).

2020 was off to a solid start, however, COVID-19 crushed hotel occupancy.  Hotel occupancy was off 38.7% YoY last week.

Notes: Y-axis doesn’t start at zero to better show the seasonal change.

Usually, hotel occupancy starts to pick up seasonally in early June. So some of the recent pickups might be seasonal (summer travel).   Note that summer occupancy usually peaks at the end of July or in early August.

This graph, based on weekly data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), shows the year-over-year change in gasoline consumption.

At one point, gasoline consumption was off almost 50% YoY.

As of June 26th, gasoline consumption was only off about 10% YoY (about 90% of normal).

The final graph is from Apple’s mobility. From Apple: “This data is generated by counting the number of requests made to Apple Maps for directions in select countries/regions, sub-regions, and cities.” This is just a general guide – people that regularly commute probably don’t ask for directions.

There are also some great data on mobility from the Dallas Fed Mobility and Engagement Index. However the index is set “relative to its weekday-specific average over January–February”, and is not seasonally adjusted, so we can’t tell if an increase in mobility is due to recovery or just the normal increase in the Spring and Summer.

This data is through July 4th for the United States and several selected cities.

The graph is the running 7-day average to remove the impact of weekends.

IMPORTANT: All data is relative to January 13, 2020. This data is NOT Seasonally Adjusted. People walk and drive more when the weather is nice, so I’m just using the transit data.

According to the Apple data directions requests, public transit in the US is still only about 45% of the January level. It is at 38% in New York, and 49% in Houston (down over the last couple of weeks).

 

Does The Fed Know Something That We Don’t? (**Of Course They Do!)

Over the past week, investors have been entangled in weighing the risk of rising infections against the reward of a smooth reopening (economic recovery). In the midst of a turbulent market, Fed intervention has swayed the invisible hand.

The recent expansion of the Federal Reserve’s supervision and regulation duties has been historic in scope. One of the first examples of this occurred towards the end of last year, when the central bank started actively intervening in the overnight repo markets as interest rates soared to 10%, way past the 2% target rate set by the Fed.

As a consequence of a liquidity crunch, soaring rates in the repo market led the Fed to buy short-dated treasury bills, and then roll over their positions after consecutive weeks and months. The total procurement amounted to upwards of $500 billion. Officially, the Federal Reserve labeled the program as “repo operations” rather than classifying it as a Quantitative Easing (QE), which involves the purchase of longer-dated Treasury securities

Then came a pandemic that jolted the US economy into its worst contraction since the Great Depression. In contrast to the recessions of the past (2008), this time around Fed response was swift and expansive. Intervention in the aftermath of 2008 was delayed and carefully weighed, in order to prevent inciting fear in the financial markets.

This time around, things are different. The depth of market intervention by the central bank has penetrated deeper than the mere purchase of short-dated T-bills. Not only did the central bank announced that it would be buying $750 billion worth of investment-grade corporate bond ETFs, but also added on Monday that its new lending facility will dip its toes in the sale and purchase of individual corporate bonds.

Additionally, the Main Street Lending Program announced in April would allow the central bank to purchase 95% of the loans that banks have made to small businesses. By limiting the private lender risk of small banks to 5%, the Fed intends to discourage irresponsible lending. In essence, the Fed would take over the private risk borne by commercial banks as lenders to small businesses.

This asymmetric transference of risk has come with its fair share of surprises. As findings reveal, the central bank owns the debt on two companies – Hertz Global Inc. and JC Penney – through its ETF exposure. The result: both firms have seen their stock soar over 100% after they each filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Last month, chairman Jerome Powell defended Fed intervention in an online event hosted by Princeton University. “We crossed a lot of red lines that had not been crossed before,” Powell said, “I’m very confident that this is the situation where you do that and then you figure it out.”

As investors weigh recession against recovery, we are yet to witness what happens when the dust settles.

 

Stifel Recruiting Rebounds

After the departure of their national recruiting head, John Pierce, Stifel recruiting took a bit of a pause. As they circled the wagons they remained engaged with advisors that had been in the pipeline before Mr. Pierce’s departure and the fruits of those efforts have finally found their way to the firm. Via On Wall Street

“The largest of Stifel’s latest recruits is an ex-Merrill Lynch team that managed $935 million. It is composed of advisors Blase Sparma, Stephen Long Jr., Brad Ripplemeyer, and Hampton Ballard. They made the move last week and will staff a new Stifel office in Venice, Florida.”

“Sparma and Long had been at Merrill Lynch since starting their careers in 2000 and 2004, respectively, according to FINRA BrokerCheck records. Ripplemeyer began his advisory career at Smith Barney in 2000, moving to Merrill in 2012. Ballard has spent the entirety of his four-year career at Merrill.”

All in all, Stifel brought in $1.5B in client assets via their recruiting haul, adding several other advisors and teams to go along with the flagship group from Merrill Lynch.

Over the past four years, Stifel has feasted on Merrill Lynch’s legacy teams and advisors. This group adds to that batch of former Merrill Lynch faculty that now call Stifel home.

Beyond Merrill Lynch, Stifel also landed a sizable grouping of Wells Fargo talent across the country. Interestingly enough Wells Fargo has a sizable presence in St. Louis alongside Stifel – so a bit of hand to hand combat on the recruiting front.

Whether or not Stifel can keep up the pace that is set in 2018 and 2019 is yet to be seen, but $1.5B in recruited assets is a great start.

Amidst Pandemic Chaos Big Teams Accelerate Moves To New Firms; We Tell You Why

If it seems like larger and more frequent recruiting headlines keep hitting the tape, you are viewing the wealth management landscape correctly. Each and every week hundreds of millions, if not billions, in client assets are filling out asset transfer paperwork on Saturday and Sunday across the country. And there is no slow down in sight.

The wirehouses continue to be hit hardest as advisors are either opting for perceived greener pastures at a rival firm or setting up their own shop as masters of their inside an RIA aggregator of note. The mass exodus remains real and ongoing, no matter what firm brass at places like UBS and B of A/Merrill Lynch would have you believe.

But we are more interested in why these moves are occurring now…and accelerating in the midst of COVID-19 and historic market volatility. We think the following four dynamics are fueling the recruiting market and have tipped the scales in the question.

  1. Practice valuations and client balances (AUM) are at historic highs.The thought process here is that with client balances at or near all-time highs, annual production levels, along with the stock market, are bloated in ways the industry has never seen before. T12 numbers and their multipliers are extremely ripe and perfectly situated to capitalize on the next dynamic in this list. Advisors would be well advised to take advantage of the gift that the markets have given them.
  2. Recruiting deals are at all-time highs and almost artificially outsized for big teams.The competition for teams of scale is as fierce as it has ever been, and deals reflect that competition. At both Wells Fargo and First Republic, when including deferred compensation balances and choosing to retire at those firms, the numbers can surpass 500%. Yes, you read that right. Deals are more apt to retreat from these levels than to press much higher – another reason why big teams are hitting the bid.
  3. Expired deals.Every advisor and team that mattered during the financial crisis has had the deals they signed back in 2010 (either to stay at their firm or in a move to a new firm) expire. Everyone is a free agent and evaluating the best way to play out the rest of their career – both philosophically and by way of monetizing their book. Besides the two firms that exited protocol in UBS and Morgan Stanley, most advisors are completely legally detached from their current firm.
  4. The COVID-19 effect is real and a significant advantage for transitioning to a new firm.At the outset of the pandemic most thought that the chaos and market turbulence would stifle recruiting movement. Just the opposite has been true. Clients that have stayed home from work are more available to discuss moves and sign transition paperwork virtually; while advisors deal with fewer colleagues attempting to keep their clients at the firm they are leaving. In terms of the drama of the first weeks of a transition, COVID-19 has become an easy off-ramp for exiting advisors.

Doing a serious evaluation of the tent that you find yourself under as an advisor is an absolute must right now. With so many deals stretching beyond 300% and production and asset levels at historic highs, big teams will continue to leave. Considering the factors above and the cover for a transition, you should be doing your own evaluation right now.