As financial advisors continue to bear up under a perfect storm of market turmoil, and watch their companies raked over the coals for their roles in the economic collapse, the bad news keeps on coming.

Recently, the Merrill Lynch herd formerly known as thundering saw its new boss, Bank of America chief executive officer Ken Lewis, dismissed from his perch as the company's chairman. That shakeup was swiftly followed by the news that the government stress tests showed the bank needs an addition $34 billion in capital, in case the economy worsens.

The effects on advisors are mostly indirect and psychological, but they can still be meaningful, according to experts. Those effects can include: reshaping a work culture they're already used to; creating new job-related stress; making client meetings more difficult and; on the plus side, possibly giving them more products to sell.

First, the positive. Some analysts say that the capital cushion the government is calling for amounts to a silver lining for advisors at Bank of America/Merrill Lynch. Richard Bove, bank analyst at Rochdale Securities, notes that Merrill Lynch on its own was not a well-capitalized firm. But taking an optimistic view, he says that Bank of America is; and with even more capital under its belt, it will pull in more investment banking business, which, in turn, will give advisors more inventory to sell.

For example, Bove notes that Bank of America has done a number of real estate investment trust (REIT) deals in recent weeks. "The brokers were able to participate in a large number of common stock offerings, which is the most profitable thing they do. They have to compete with Schwab and other discount brokers [for ordinary buying and selling] but with an offering, they get paid three or four times the commission rate. All this capital at Bank of America means more deals, and brokers make more money," Bove says.

As for the departure of Ken Lewis from the chairman's seat, some market observers say that will affect the overall work culture of the company. Nell Minnow, editor and cofounder of the Corporate Library, which is a leading corporate governance watchdog, applauds the idea of splitting those roles. "The CEO is still responsible for the day-to-day, which [defines] corporate culture. When companies have been forced to split their CEO and chairmen, it has usually resulted in the departure of the CEO. So it's more uncertainty for the brokers," she says.

Moreover, she suggests that this might be the beginning of a new trend in corporate America. She believes there will be proposals in this congressional session to force companies to place the chairman and CEO power in the hands of different people. "That will make the conversation heat up a little bit," she says. She notes that the separation of the CEO and chairman roles have been the norm in the United Kingdom, since the late 1980s.

While Bove didn't think it would have a direct impact on advisors, he still approves of splitting the two senior jobs. "You should never have the chairman and CEO be the same person-the conflict of interest is overwhelming. That's why most boards are more useless than-put in whatever cliché you want," Bove says.

As far as other effects on advisors, they can be chalked up to the hard-to-measure-yet-still-meaningful category of stress and corporate image. "Any time the brokers have the name of their firm in the paper in a negative way, it's just one more thing to have to explain to your client," says Danny Sarch, president of Leitner Sarch Consultants, a headhunting firm based in White Plains, N.Y. "Brokers can't stand what's happening. For the last year, advisors have been defending their firms-that's just a huge negative. So every time you think it's safe to get back in the water..."

Sarch says that things have finally gotten to the point that they must actively be looking for job opportunities.

"In the past, interviewing was a luxury," Sarch says. "It was like advisors thought, 'I'm curious what those firms are like.' Now it's irresponsible not to know what your Plan B is. I tell advisors, 'Your shareholders are the ones you go home to every night. If you're a responsible business person, how can you justify not knowing where you want to be?'"

That said, Sarch notes that turmoil in the big wirehouses does not mean advisors are rushing out the doors to go independent. "It's still such a small number relative to the number of wirehouse advisors."