Most wealth management firms can tell you (nearly to the dollar) how much they spend annually on technology. Software licenses, custodial platform fees, CRM subscription fees, cybersecurity, planning tools, and data feeds – the line items are well understood, regularly benchmarked, and routinely defended in budget meetings.
Now, ask the same leadership team what they spend on talent strategy.
The answer is usually a long pause, a couple of shrugs, and some version of "well, compensation is most of it" or "we don't really break it out that way." This isn't meant as a knock on these firms. It's simply a structural feature of an industry that has historically treated talent as something that happens rather than something that's actively built.
However, if talent strategy is genuinely a driver of enterprise value – and the consolidation data, the succession wave, the AI transition, and the next generation's expectations all suggest it is – then it deserves a real budget. Not a placeholder. Not a footnote within an "*HR overhead* line item." But a defined, defended, and measured investment with clear categories, an external benchmark, and a philosophy for allocating the dollars.
So let's dig a little deeper and explore a more useful way to think about talent.
A complete talent budget will have considerably more components than firms typically track, including the following eight, which we believe matter most:
Total compensation is the largest line item by a wide margin and includes salary, bonuses, incentive compensation, payroll taxes, benefits, and equity or profit-sharing distributions. According to Schwab's 2025 RIA Benchmarking Study, compensation costs accounted for 68% of firm expenses across the industry in 2024. Across all roles, total cash compensation rose 23% from 2020 to 2024, a figure worth remembering the next time someone argues that wage pressure has stabilized.
Recruiting and hiring: encompassing job postings, recruiter fees, candidate assessment tools, interview travel, background checks, sign-on bonuses, and the internal staff time devoted to filling open roles. Firms often dramatically underestimate this line item because most of the cost is buried in operating expenses rather than tracked as a talent investment.
Onboarding: specifically, the structured 30, 90, and 180-day programs that turn new hires into productive contributors. These costs include training materials, mentor time, orientation systems, AI tool training, and the productivity cost of bringing new hires up the learning curve.
Learning and development: consider the investment you make in formal training, certifications, continuing education, executive coaching, leadership development programs, conference attendance, tuition reimbursement, and internal training infrastructure. This line item is often underfunded relative to its strategic importance to the firm's ongoing success.
Performance management infrastructure: all the systems, tools, and time required to run performance reviews, structured one-on-one meetings, 360-degree feedback processes, and engagement surveys carry a cost. If you do these things well, it is a nontrivial investment. If you don't invest enough, or at all, the costs show up elsewhere – in turnover, in disengagement, and in the managers who quietly tolerate underperformance because the firm offers no framework for addressing it.
Succession and bench-strength development: this is the line item that firms tend to discover far too late. It includes stretch assignments, leadership rotations, investment in executive coaching for emerging leaders, next-generation advisor programs, equity transition planning, and the consulting or legal support required to make ownership transitions work successfully.
Culture, engagement, and retention: building a strong collaborative culture requires investment in employee surveys, recognition programs, internal communications, team offsites, wellness benefits, and the cultural infrastructure that transforms a collection of employees into an actual organization.
AI fluency and capability building: this is a new but necessary category. It includes all the AI training for advisors, associates, and operations staff, subscriptions to AI tools for capability development, governance frameworks, and the costs associated with updating role definitions and workflows as AI adoption deepens.
Why spend time itemizing these categories? The reason isn't bureaucratic; it's diagnostic. When firms break out their talent spend this way, many quickly discover that 90% of the cost is in compensation, 5% in recruiting, and the remaining 5% is fragmented across the other six categories. That allocation isn't indicative of a strategy. Rather, it demonstrates the absence of one.
A reasonable starting point comes from the Association for Talent Development, which publishes annual benchmarks across industries. In 2024, the average U.S. organization spent:
If you're benchmarking your wealth management firm against the broader economy, you may be setting the bar too low. Keep in mind that the per-employee L&D figure above doesn't include the much larger compensation line. A useful way to think about the full talent spend is in two tiers:
The compensation line – for most RIAs, this is the 65--70% of total operating expenses considered a table-stakes investment.
The development line – this is the L&D, succession, AI fluency, performance infrastructure, and engagement work, which together constitute a strategic investment that distinguishes the elite firms competing for talent from most that simply pay their employees.
Recent data from Schwab offers another useful anchor. In their 2025 RIA Benchmarking Study, Schwab reports that firms typically added one new full-time employee for every $403,000 in revenue. But that ratio implies a planning discipline that most firms do not formally maintain: as the firm grows, the headcount investment is largely predictable, and the talent development investment around those new hires should scale proportionally rather than be re-fought every year.
Once you've named the categories and identified a benchmark, the harder work begins. Where should the next marginal dollar go? There are generally three principles that separate firms that invest well from those that invest badly.
Tie investment to enterprise value drivers, not to comfort. Your natural inclination is likely to spend on what's familiar (e.g., conference attendance, the same training vendor as last year, the leadership offsite that everyone enjoys). However, the better discipline is to start with the firm's strategic priorities and then reason backward. If succession is the single biggest enterprise value question, the budget should reflect that with named next-generation development programs, stretch assignments funded with real economics, and equity transition planning resourced as a multi-year initiative. If AI fluency is projected to reshape productivity over the next 24 months, the budget should reflect that as well. Remember, comfort is not a strategy.
Develop managers as deliberately as advisors. Gallup's widely reported 2025 research found that only 44% of managers globally have received any formal management training. In an industry where managers are typically promoted producers who have never been taught to lead, this is the highest-leverage place to deploy your development dollars. A modestly funded, well-designed manager training program covering one-on-one cadence, feedback skills, performance conversations, and development planning can deliver tremendous returns measurable in retention, engagement, and team productivity. In reality, few investments compare.
Match dollars to the next generation's actual priorities. Millennials and Gen Z (who will make up 74% of the global workforce by 2030) list learning and development as the top criterion when choosing an employer. They're not asking for foosball tables. They're asking for visible career paths, real investment in development, exposure to AI tooling, and a credible answer to "where can I go in this firm and how do I get there?" The budget items that answer those questions, such as career pathing infrastructure, mentorship programs, technical training, and leadership development, are the same items that show up in best-in-class firm valuations. And that alignment is no coincidence.
In short, your focus should always be on measuring outcomes rather than activity. The last discipline matters just as much as the first. After all, a talent budget is only as useful as the outcomes it can be linked to.
The metrics that matter most are: regrettable attrition (defined as the loss of employees the firm wanted to retain); time-to-productivity for new hires; engagement scores and the spread between teams; internal fill rates for key roles; quality-of-hire indicators at 30, 90, and 180 days; and bench-strength readiness for each critical role.
None of these are exotic. All of them are measurable. The firms that link their talent budget to a small set of outcome measures, review the data quarterly, and adjust investment accordingly will compound an advantage over firms that treat the talent line as a fixed cost to be minimized.
Make no mistake, talent strategy has become an enterprise value investment, not an overhead expense. It deserves a dedicated budget, a named benchmark, a clear philosophy, and accountability for the outcomes it delivers. And the firms that build that operating discipline now will still be winning the talent race a decade from now.
If you itemize your entire talent spend today, what percentage is tied up in baseline compensation versus the strategic categories like AI fluency, onboarding, and manager development? What does that ratio reveal about whether you actually have a talent strategy or just a payroll?
You probably track your technology licenses and spending down to the penny. But what unbudgeted, hidden cost does your firm absorb annually from slow time-to-productivity for new hires, regrettable attrition, and managers tolerating underperformance?
By 2030, Millennials and Gen Z will make up nearly three-quarters of the workforce. Looking at your current budget, what steps can you take to shift your funding from things you're comfortable with, like conferences, to the things the next generation truly wants, like clearer career paths, mentorship, and AI capability building?