The news usually arrives without much warning. Your investment lead gives notice, and the person who knew every model, every manager, and every client’s quirks will be gone in a few weeks.
Sometimes nothing dramatic happens at all. Your client base keeps getting more complex, and the investment support that fit your firm five years ago starts to feel stretched. Or a provider relationship starts to slip: calls get slower, answers get vaguer, and you’re no longer sure anyone is really watching the portfolios for your firm and your clients.
Each of these moments feels urgent, and the instinct is to fix it fast. Post the job, call a recruiter, or sign with the first provider who returns your email. We understand that instinct. We also think the decision deserves more care than a quick replacement can provide, because whatever you choose will shape how your firm runs for years.
Below are two composite examples drawn from situations advisors commonly face, a side-by-side look at building in-house versus outsourcing, and the questions we’d ask before making the call. One thing up front: building in-house is the right answer for some firms. The goal of this piece is to help you figure out which kind of firm yours is.
The examples below are hypothetical composites. They do not describe any specific firm or client.
When the investment person leaves
Picture a planning-focused RIA with a handful of advisors and one internal investment professional who had been there for years. That person built the models, ran manager due diligence, wrote the quarterly client letter, and fielded every “should I be worried?” email the advisors forwarded. When they left for another opportunity, the partners’ first plan was to replace them.
Then they looked at the timeline. A search could take months, and a new hire would need additional time afterward to fully understand the firm’s philosophy. Until then, the advisors would be covering investment work themselves, and planning would be the thing that slipped through the cracks.
Two things moved the firm toward outsourcing. The first was finding a partner whose investment philosophy already lined up closely with theirs, so they weren’t trading their approach for someone else’s. The second was practical: that partner had already produced quarterly client collateral, so the next client letter didn’t have to be rebuilt from scratch by a partner working on a weekend.
Ready-made collateral sounds like a small thing until you’re the one writing it. As one advisor told us:
“We find East Bay’s investment collateral to be an invaluable resource in support of our client conversations.”* Kim S., CFP®, Founder*
When the firm outgrows its setup
A second firm had the opposite problem. Nobody left. The firm simply grew, and its clients grew with it into more complex territory: larger households, ultra-high-net-worth families and portfolios with more moving pieces than the firm’s original investment support was designed to handle.
That original setup had been a good fit when the firm was younger. Over time, though, the advisors felt they were ready for a change.
What they wanted was broader portfolio support and a partner with the depth to handle complexity, while the planning relationship stayed firmly with the advisor.
Building in-house vs. outsourcing: a side-by-side
Neither option is free, and neither is automatically better. Here’s how the two tend to compare on the things that matter most.
| Building in-house | Outsourcing | |
| Time to get coverage in place | Recruiting and ramp-up can take months, and advisors cover the gap in the meantime. | Onboarding can move faster, especially when the partner’s philosophy is already close to yours. |
| Cost structure | Salary, benefits and bonuses, plus the cost of searching again if the person leaves. | A defined fee, with the scope of work spelled out in the agreement. |
| Key-person risk | Much of the knowledge often lives with one person. | Knowledge sits with a team and a documented process. |
| Research and due diligence | Limited by one person’s bandwidth and specialties. | Shared across a team that does this work full time. |
| Client collateral and forwarded questions | Written by your hire, when they have time. | Often included and ready to adapt for your clients. |
| Control and philosophy fit | Full control, with someone inside your culture every day. | Full control, with East Bay handling the heavy lifting in a way that fits our shared philosophy. |
In-house often makes sense for firms large enough to support more than one investment professional, firms that see investment management as their core differentiator, or firms with someone already on the team who wants to grow into the role. If that describes you, rebuilding may be the right move. If it doesn’t, the questions below can help you tell.
Questions to ask before you decide
What does our investment philosophy actually look like on paper? Many firms have a clear philosophy that lives mostly in one person’s head. Before you hire or outsource, write it down. If you can’t describe it clearly, neither a new hire nor a partner can carry it out, and the exercise alone will clarify what you’re looking for and who might be the best fit for your firm to sit in the CIO seat.
How long can our advisors cover investment work before planning starts to slip? Be honest about the number. A few weeks of covering models and client questions is manageable for most teams. A few months usually shows up in slower plan deliveries, delayed reviews, and tired advisors. That timeline matters when you compare a hiring search to an onboarding process.
Advisors who have been through this often describe the relief in terms of time. One founder put it this way:
“We were growing and struggling with client load and all the administrative things we needed to do. East Bay lifted a huge time burden for us.”* Kay Dee C., CFP®, CeFT®, CEO and Founder*
If the next hire leaves in three years, are we back here again? Turnover is part of running any firm. The question is whether your investment function can survive it. If the answer depends entirely on one person staying put, that’s worth knowing before you rebuild the same structure.
How much of our client communication depends on one person? Think about the quarterly letter, the market update, the email that goes out when markets drop and the answers to questions clients forward. If one person writes all of it, losing them means losing your voice with clients on investment topics, at exactly the moment clients are paying attention.
Will we lose control of the investment process if we outsource? This is the worry we hear most often, and it’s a fair one. A good partner should make you more involved in investment decisions, not less. One advisor described it like this:
“With East Bay, you guys encourage us to be involved in the investment process. As a result, our investment knowledge and confidence in explaining difficult concepts to clients has increased simply because of that direct involvement.”* Jeff V., CFP®, Managing Principal & Wealth Advisor*
If you’re moving away from a different Fractional CIO provider, what specifically broke? Name it before you start looking. Was it performance, communication, philosophy, or trust? Start by naming exactly why you’re leaving. If it was slow responses, look for a partner known for service. If it was a philosophy mismatch, look for one whose approach matches yours. Otherwise, you may end up with the same problem at a new firm.
The goal is an investment function you can count on
Whichever way you go, the aim is the same: an investment function that doesn’t depend on luck, or on one person staying put, and that gives your advisors the confidence to answer client questions clearly. Some firms get there by building a team. Others get there with a partner. Both can work well when the decision is made deliberately.
If your firm is in one of these moments and you’d like to talk through the questions above with someone who has seen how they play out, Eric is always glad to have that conversation, with no expectation attached. Let’s talk.
*These statements are from current or then-current East Bay clients who were not compensated for them, and no conflict of interest exists between them and East Bay Investment Solutions.