Wealth management used to run on brokers who got paid per transaction. Then it shifted. The industry moved to advisors who build long-term relationships and get paid on the ongoing relationship, not the trade. The RIA model won because incentives finally aligned with the client. I think buy-side acquisition advisory is heading the same direction, and I'm curious whether others here see it too. My partner @redacted‌, and I have been buying businesses since 2016 and helping others do it sinceredactedWe built our model deliberately on the wealth-management parallel: instead of getting paid a one-time fee to close a deal and walk away, we partner with the buyer, take equity, and stay involved for the long haul, including running the back office after the acquisition. Our financial management team handles the bookkeeping, the reporting, and the CFO-level work post-close, so the relationship doesn't end at closing. It starts there. That "stay involved after the deal" piece is where I think the real value is, and it's why the people who thrive in this model aren't dealmakers chasing the next transaction. They're advisors who like building something durable with an operator over years. That’s the bet we’re making going forward, and as we build out, we're looking to team with 4-6 experienced people who fit that mold: sales coaches, recruiters, fractional CFOs/CMOs/COOs, management consultants, and seasoned operators. People whose instinct is to add value to the business long after the deal closes, not just get it across the line. (This isn't for the first-time searcher. It's for people with real advisory experience.) So the question for the group: do you think acquisition advisory follows wealth management's path from transaction to relationship? Or is the one-time-fee model here to stay on the buy side? Katie @redacted‌ and I talked through the whole model with Clint Fiore and Patrick Dichter on Inspired or Acquired if you want the longer version: redacted