This year of change won't be confined to Capitol Hill, or Manhattan. Advisors nationwide will look back at 2009 as a pivotal moment in their compensation plans. More firms changed their plans this year than ever, with some complete overhauls.

For a company that went for a wholesale change, consider Hilliard Lyons. Using the imitation-as-a-form-of-flattery strategy, it tipped its hat to Wachovia and Stifel, converting its grid completely to look more like their two-tiered payout plans. Hilliard will pay 25% on the first $10,000 a month and then 50% on all monthly sales over $10,000. Wachovia, for its part, tweaked its plan, by looking at its 2007 merger partner A.G. Edwards and incorporating some elements reflecting the latter's compensation approach.

Overall, wirehouse advisors improved their pay situation this year, provided they are top producers. Some firms' changes will affect advisors who rely heavily on one particular type of business. The best example comes from Merrill Lynch, which undertook the biggest revision of its plan since 2002. For its new plan, Merrill backed away from its significantly higher payout rates for annuitized business, while also flattening out its policy of paying differential rates for transactional business based on ticket size. Now, its basic payment structure is a more standard grid with one blended "product neutral" payout rate based on annual sales levels including both transactional and annuitized products. So heavily annuitized advisors' compensation may drop with this change, while more transactional-based advisors, particularly with smaller transactions, may get some relief.

Other advisors who will suffer in the short-run at wirehouses are those with any reasonable level of smaller accounts, say less than $100,000. This year, Merrill removed its last remaining payout opportunities on those clients. Smith Barney and UBS joined Morgan Stanley by eliminating payouts on these smaller account sizes, though at slightly lower account levels. This leaves Wachovia and the regional firms with payouts that don't discriminate based on the size of the client account. Again, given deteriorating client assets in recent months, these limits could be capturing what had been a $200,000 account. Consequently, these penalties for smaller client accounts will affect an even greater proportion of an advisor's book than they would have in the past.

Firms with a significant profit-sharing element also will face some pressure. The best example is Edward Jones, due to the proportion of compensation that comes from its unique profit-sharing payout based on the individual advisor's results and profitability. Its most recent profit payout looks to be about half the level of past years, which lowered its relative position in this year's rankings a bit.

If you are wondering why your own payout levels might look lower than the values in the basic compensation analyses, remember all these payout estimates are akin to the warning on your car mirrors: Payouts may appear larger than they actually are. These simple illustrations do not include every potential effect of penalties and special policies, such as small household penalties, and other discount sharing and ticket charge penalties, which would deflate these basic estimates. So remember: individual results may vary depending on each advisor's personal mix and situation. But at least the opportunities and rewards are driven largely by each advisor's effort and success, rather than more qualitative or arbitrary limits set by management or government.