The best job to have in this industry is that of financial advisor. Granted, that's like being the tallest midget in the circus these days. But regardless of your production level, some firm will want you (provided you are compliance clean). I'm not saying your job is without its stresses, and, of course, the last year has been a miserable experience. But compared to the branch manager, your job has been a picnic. That's right: I think that the worst job in the entire wealth management sector is that of the branch manager.

It hasn't always been this way. But today, that job is tougher and more insecure than ever, and it pays less. The manager has the responsibility to oversee every advisor in the branch. This is absurd. Name another business model where one manager has 50 or more direct reports. It doesn't work.

Also, the branch manager is supposed to somehow control the words that come out of every advisor's mouth. If some fool promises a client that XYZ stock will double overnight, not only will that fool get a ding on his own compliance record, but the branch manager will get dinged for "failure to supervise."

Recruiting has become the primary way that a branch manager can differentiate himself, both from competing firms and managers at his own firm. Recruit or be replaced-it's as simple as that. If his firm is in the headlines every day for a scandal, or if the smell of an acquisition is in the air, the branch manager will have a tough time filling seats. Doesn't matter: Recruit or be replaced.

The flip side is true, too. If every manager has to recruit, then every manager is at constant risk of having his own advisors walk out the door. And recruiting is not just for Fridays anymore; the most recent recruiting wars have seen advisors departing every single day of the week. Those cold sweats that your branch manager used to get only at the end of the week can now happen every day. Good times!

Branch managers used to have some modicum of job security before the age of the mega merger. When firms merge, there are all kinds of proclamations about how much money is going to be saved. Does anybody doubt that branches will be consolidated and closed? That puts branch managers out of work. Some regional directors are likely to lose their jobs as well, and they'll also be competing for the best branches out there. All told, there are just too many qualified branch manager candidates for the number of positions that are going to be available in the near term.

Now let's talk about compensation. A typical wirehouse branch manager earns somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000, plus a bonus. But this year, uncertainty reigns. For example, for the first time Merrill Lynch managers have no "critical firm objectives," so there are no objective measures to determine bonuses. Now part of a joint venture, Smith Barney and Morgan Stanley managers do not know how they will be paid in 2009. Similarly Wachovia Securities managers do not know how they will be paid by their new parent, Wells Fargo. Finally, with gross production down, and fixed costs fixed, the profitability of a given branch is sure to slip.

When you talk with branch managers about the old days, they'll get a wistful look in their eyes and talk about the time when they actually had profit-and-loss responsibility for their branches. Today, even the smallest expenditure has to be sent up the chain of command for approval. From the hiring of a trainee to buying pizza for a meeting, the branch manager is no longer in control of expenses.

The moral of the story to the producers out there who aspire to be managers or run the wealth management divisions of their firms: The corporate pyramid is skinnier than ever at the top, so never give up your book.

Danny Sarch is president of Leitner Sarch Consultants, a Wall Street recruitment firm based in White Plains, N.Y. You can email him at danny@leitnersarch.com or visit www.leitnersarch.com.