Advisors rarely make career decisions in isolation. When evaluating their futures, they look for context—how peers have navigated similar moments, what options others have chosen, and how those decisions unfolded over time.

One of the most common early questions we hear from advisors considering change is:

“Where have others like me gone?”

This research helps answer that question by examining advisor departures through the lens of tenure and career stage. While no dataset can explain individual motivations, understanding peer movement provides valuable perspective as advisors assess their own paths.

The intent is not to direct outcomes, but to support more intentional, informed decision‑making.

This analysis is relevant to several audiences across the wealth management ecosystem:

Advisors evaluating their options
For advisors considering independence, firm changes, or succession timing, this research offers one data point—among many—to help contextualize personal experience within broader industry patterns.

Firms seeking to attract Edward Jones alumni
For firms recruiting experienced advisors, understanding when and how long‑tenured advisors tend to move can inform recruiting strategy, advisor support models, and integration planning.

Industry leaders and strategists
At a broader level, advisor movement reflects structural forces such as demographics, succession economics and evolving firm models. This work can inform the client-focused strategies and attraction efforts.

This research does not seek to attribute intent, motivation, or causation to individual advisors or firms.

What the data does do is surface patterns that naturally raise questions. Those questions are informed further by a broader set of inputs, including public commentary from Edward Jones leadership, coverage and analysis from industry news media, and ongoing conversations with advisors and other informed industry participants.

Taken together, these perspectives help fill in gaps that no single dataset can address on its own.

The goal of this research is not finger‑pointing or assigning blame. It is to encourage thoughtful, data‑grounded conversation—one that allows advisors, firms, and industry leaders to better understand the forces shaping career decisions and strategic options in a changing landscape.

The analysis is based on third‑party advisor data sourced from AdvizorPro, an industry‑standard database tracking advisor employment history, registrations, and firm affiliations.

In summary:

• The analysis examines advisors whose most recent prior firm was Edward Jones

• The time frame spans a five‑year period

• Non‑advisor individuals were excluded

• Tenure at the time of departure was a key analytical lens

Further methodology details are available in the full research paper.

Yes. As with all third‑party datasets, this research has limitations.

• The data reflects completed registration changes, not when advisors began evaluating options

• Assets under management (AUM) associated with departures are not available

• Individual motivations and internal firm dynamics cannot be inferred from the data alone

These limitations are important to acknowledge and reinforce the need to interpret the findings thoughtfully.

Open, data‑based discussion benefits the industry as a whole.

By sharing this analysis publicly—and transparently—our goal is to contribute to a more informed conversation around advisor mobility, succession, and strategic choice, while allowing readers to review the data, methodology, and interpretation for themselves.