Just to say what other people have said - it's not about what we would do, it's about what you really want to do.

You seem to have thought through the pros and cons of both scenarios very carefully, so the only decision you have to make is which pros make you happiest and which cons bother you the least.

Personally, I'd never like to work for myself. I work for a self employed couple at present and although they can do things like leave the shop for 20 minutes to collect their daughter every day from school, they never really have a moment off work - it's woven into their lives to such an extent that they never switch it off. This is fine as they are passionate about the business, and you never make money in retail unless you are the boss, but it's certainly not for me.

Regardless of what change I make, I'll leave about 30% of my clients behind because the new format wouldn't be in their best interests. Either of the new formats would allow me to provide equal if not better service than I currently provide them.

My assistant. If I go independent, she comes with immediately. If I go the employee route she will probably stay where she is because whoever steps in to replace me will have to continue to pay her at the rate I've given her. I wouldn't be able to bring her over at her current rate until I'm producing and have some weight to throw around. Either way I'll take care of her. If she has to stay because I go to the bank I'll give her a chunk of my signing bonus to help her with the inconvenience.

Income really isn't an issue here. As an independent I would eventually make far more. In the near term it would be a tighter, but not too much of a problem. Staying where I am or being an employee I'll still have 6 figures to work with. Not bragging, just trying to reiterate that income really isn't the key since they all will provide well for me and mine.

the real issue is independent = i'm the king of the world. the pinnacle of the industry. the envy of my peers. absolute freedom to succeed or fail without anyone to say a word about it. granted i would have to invest roughly $100K into it in the first year alone, but that's just the way of it. I eat what I kill. I don't give my hard earned revenues to big brother...

employee = lower long term potential, but easier time landing clients because they would mostly be warm prospects to start with. (I've achieved what I have strictly by referral, so this is intriguing to me) I give about $.60 on the dollar to big brother, but I produce much much more thanks to big brother's client deposit lists, advertising, expense acct, cross selling, referrals, etc. But I do have a big brother, regardless of how uninvolved he seems to be. on the + they pay for the office etc.

In my industry you can't have side jobs so I can't do one, while trying to do the other, it is all or nothing. Obviously I can play the employee game for a few years and then go independent, but I really hate uprooting clients because inevitably, only 60-80
% follow you. oh well.

At the bank you might run into an inner circle of established people that have preference on the leads.

I think your personality would be best served by being independent.