# RM First-Year Income Table — Archetype B (EAM-to-EAM move)

> **Status:** v1 (2026-10-09). The RM-track's most persuasive artifact: the honest math of moving from an incumbent EAM to us, built from the fee schedule + researched market norms. Designed to be shown in the RM pitch (C2) as ONE table — per marketing-synthesis rule 2 (one number per message → here, one table that carries the whole economics message).
> Assumptions are declared on the slide; every input is negotiable via `fee-schedule-draft.md` YAML.
> Sources: `research-rm-move-economics.md` (share norms, follow-rate anchor), `research-rm-psychology.md` (40% rule).

---

## The setup (declared on the slide)

- **Incumbent pays 50%** of client fees (the archetype's stated pain — typical small-EAM band 40–55%).
- **We pay 60%**, or **65% in the founding-RM step-up** (24 months, then 60%) — top-of-band per AlphaSwiss 60% anchor and vapa's 40–60% retention band.
- **Fee basis identical both sides** (retro-free, same blended ~0.93% client fee) — so the comparison is clean: only the share differs. No "who keeps the 30 net?" ambiguity (vapa's warning about headline splits).
- **Follow rates:** 25% / 40% / 60% of stated book. The 40% is the market's open-secret anchor (Chalem, Executive Partners). EAM-to-EAM second moves plausibly follow better [I — no dataset exists]: KYC/custody static, clients pre-selected for mobility, "a few administrative signatures" (Magistra). We present the pessimistic case FIRST — per marketing-synthesis rule 5 (candor first).

## The table (annual RM income at steady state, blended ~0.93% fee)

| Stated book | Moved AUM | Gross client fees | Incumbent @ 50% | Us @ 60% | Us @ 65% (founding) | Delta vs incumbent (60%) |
|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| CHF 80m | 25% → 20m | 186k | 93k | 112k | 121k | +19k |
| CHF 80m | 40% → 32m | 298k | 149k | 179k | 193k | +30k |
| CHF 80m | 60% → 48m | 446k | 223k | 268k | 290k | +45k |
| CHF 150m | 25% → 38m | 349k | 174k | 209k | 227k | +35k |
| CHF 150m | 40% → 60m | 558k | 279k | 335k | 363k | +56k |
| CHF 150m | 60% → 90m | 837k | 419k | 502k | 544k | +84k |
| CHF 250m | 25% → 63m | 581k | 291k | 349k | 378k | +58k |
| CHF 250m | 40% → 100m | 930k | 465k | 558k | 605k | +93k |
| CHF 250m | 60% → 150m | 1,395k | 698k | 837k | 907k | +140k |

## What the table says (the one message)

**"You get paid more even when fewer clients come than you planned."** Even in the pessimistic 25% column, the 60/65% share outearns the incumbent's 50% on the same moved book. The extra 10–15 points are guaranteed-by-structure income, not performance-dependent.

## The honest counterweights (stated unprompted — rule 5)

1. **Absolute income drops in year 1 if the moved book is small.** At CHF 80m stated / 25% follow, RM income is ~CHF 112k — below any bank salary and likely below current EAM income. The table is steady-state, not transition-year. Our answer to the transition year: (a) the founding-RM 65% step-up, (b) optional transition guarantee (see open decision below), (c) ramp is faster for EAM-to-EAM than bank→EAM (no KYC/custody rebuild).
2. **This table is pro-forma.** We have no payout history (Stauber's rule: demand 3–4 years of it). We show the mechanics and the P&L instead — and the RM is invited to verify the fee schedule in the client contracts directly.
3. **The 40% rule is about the market, not our pitch.** We are not claiming your clients will follow better here. We claim: if they follow at the normal rate, you earn more; and the operational readiness (demo) is what protects the follow rate you can't control.

## Open decisions feeding this table (user)

- **Transition guarantee:** offer one? Market norm exists for bank→EAM (≥18 months sized); for EAM-to-EAM the friction is low so a smaller/no guarantee is defensible — but a modest 6–12 month minimum-income floor (e.g. CHF 100–150k) would remove the archetype's #1 fear at modest cost to us. Alternative: guarantee via the minimum-fee mechanism (fee-schedule §3 minimum_annual_fee) recast as RM income floor.
- **Equity/partnership track:** per prior discussion — the one thing the incumbent structurally can't offer. This table deliberately excludes it (keep the economics message pure); it's the NEXT slide's message.
- **Fee share basis:** confirm gross-of-what — our schedule says share of client management fee, retro-free, no platform deductions. That "no deductions" line IS the differentiator vs. the 70/30-with-deductions trap vapa describes. Make it explicit on the slide: "60% of the client fee. Not 70% of something smaller."

## Changelog

- v1 (2026-10-09): built from fee-schedule-draft rates + research-rm-move-economics norms. Math verified programmatically.