Weekend Reading For Financial Planners (June 13–14)

Author: Adam Van Deusen, CFP

Team Kitces

Adam is a Financial Planning Nerd at Kitces.com. He previously worked at a financial planning firm in Bethesda, Maryland, and as a journalist covering the banking and insurance industries. Outside of work, he serves as a volunteer financial planner and class instructor for local and national non-profits.

Read more of Adam’s articles here.

RIA Industry Hit Records For AUM, Clients, Employment In 2025: Report

(Jennifer Lea Reed | Financial Advisor)

In recent years, the RIA model has attracted both those looking to launch their own firms from scratch, and for advisors looking to break away from the wirehouse and independent broker-dealer models (while also attracting clients looking for an advice-centric, rather than a product-centric approach when seeking an advisor). Leading industry studies to show, year after year, a slow and steady decline in the headcount of advisors in the various broker-dealer channels, and a concomitant rise in RIA headcount. Amidst this backdrop, a recent report finds that not only did the number of RIA firms hit a record in 2025, but so too did the industry's AUM, total client headcount, and total employment.

According to the 2026 Investment Adviser Industry Snapshot, compiled by the Investment Adviser Association (IAA) trade group and compliance platform Comply, the number of SEC-registered RIAs rose 4.2% to 16,544 in 2025 (the 13^th consecutive annual increase), with industry AUM (buoyed by strong market performance during the year) jumping 22.3% to $176.8 trillion, total clients increasing by 7.7% to 73.7 million, and non-clerical employment growing $7.5% to a record 1.1 million (suggesting that large-scale job cutbacks resulting from Artificial Intelligence adoption have yet to come to the industry).

RIA client headcount growth has been particularly notable in recent years, with the number of individuals using an investment adviser for asset management more than doubling to 61 million during the period (a nearly 10% annual growth rate). Though notably, a non-trivial portion of this growth is the role of RIAs as behind-the-scenes asset managers, fulfilling roles from sub-advisors to mutual funds to the managers of various forms of separately-managed accounts (e.g., Vanguard's $11 trillion RIA and Fidelity's almost-$6-trillion asset manager RIA are also included in these numbers); the actual growth of consumer-facing "retail" RIAs (e.g., those that provide financial planning and wealth management services to consumers) is also occurring, but only as a subset of this broader growth.

Still, the report also highlights that because the asset management side of RIAs is a small number of mega firms (the average AUM for RIAs is $10.7 billion, indicating that the industry remains top-heavy in terms of total assets managed given outliers like Vanguard and Fidelity), the bulk of RIA firms but quantity are the client-facing firms actually delivering advice to consumers. As a result, the majority of RIAs are still relatively small businesses, with a median firm size of eight employees and $446.8 million.

Highlighting one of the IAA's key issue areas, the report notes that as reporting requirements from regulators have increased, the average adviser produced more than 1,000 pieces of information in Form ADV Part 1A and Schedule D in 2025, up from 566 in 2011 (the IAA is currently pushing the SEC to increase the AUM threshold for firms to be considered "small entities" for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, which would likely have the effect of slowing the pace of future regulation impacting RIAs, including the ongoing expansion of regulatory reporting requirements).

In sum, the RIA industry appears to be thriving, both as a vehicle for asset management and a way for investment and financial planning advice to be delivered to consumers, attracting advisors and clients while also growing employee headcount. Which perhaps speaks to the flexibility that the independent RIA model can provide to those seeking to start their own firm or grow an existing business as well as new service and fee models (e.g., subscription-based models for clients with relatively high incomes but who are still amassing assets) that are attracting new clients to RIAs (alongside growing recognition of the benefits of working with a firm that has a fiduciary obligation to its clients?).

SEC Risk Alert Flags Advisers' Fee Practices, Disclosures Around Cash Management

(Kenneth Corbin | Barron's)

While SEC-registered RIAs have a fiduciary obligation towards their clients, conflicts of interest can still arise during the course of business. Which is why firms are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest that are not being outright avoided, and how they are mitigated so that prospective and current clients can understand them (and, in the case of the former group, decide whether they want to work with the adviser in the first place).

According to an SEC Risk Alert issued this week (resulting from the findings of recent examinations), some firms aren't meeting the regulator's standards when it comes to fee disclosures, and emerging conflicts of interest as it pertains to how client cash is handled (especially when the advisor generates different or additional revenue on client cash than other managed assets).

For instance, examiners found cases where firms assessed fees at different rates than were described in their disclosures (e.g., collecting asset-based fees on holdings that were explicitly excluded from those fees in the advisor agreement), as some firms continue to develop relatively complex fee schedules (or varying fee schedules across multiple clients) and then struggle to fully implement accurate fee billing given so many exceptions across all their client households.

Cash management was another area highlighted, including firms that automatically transferred client cash to an affiliate to manage without disclosing details about revenue arrangements (e.g., firms saying they "may" receive revenue from cash-sweep arrangements with outside custodians when they knew that they would receive revenue, less common for standalone independent RIAs, but more common amongst hybrid broker-dealer/RIA arrangements). Further, examiners found that some firms failed to disclose to clients that cash holdings are subject to the regular asset-based fees they charge, while other firms were cited for putting client assets in money-market fund share classes with higher fees than other classes of the same fund. Which means, simply put, that when it comes to cash, advisors still retain the same fiduciary obligation to ensure that clients' cash under their purview is properly invested!

Altogether, it appears that while the SEC has taken a more deliberate approach to issuing new regulations over the past year, the regulator appears to be focused on identifying areas where consumers might face direct harm, including through the use of incomplete or misleading language and practices about the fees that clients pay (and whether those fees are being billed accurately in practice). Which perhaps serves as a signal to SEC-registered RIAs to check on their own fee disclosures and practices before their next exam and, more broadly, identifying and mitigating conflicts of interest to maintain trust of current clients (and those who might consider working with an RIA in the future!).

HNW Investors Engaging In DIY Research When Searching For Advisors (Even After Receiving A Referral): Report

(Hallie Diamant | InvestmentNews)

According to Kitces Research on Advisor Marketing, client referrals are the most commonly used marketing tactic amongst financial advisors (used by 88% of survey respondents) while also having the highest satisfaction (7.3 on a 10-point scale). However, a recent report suggests that pursuing referrals in isolation could mean missing out on clients who are either looking for an advisor through different means or who supplement a referral with their own research.

According to a report from Ficomm Partners and Absolute Engagement, which uses data from a survey of 1,000 investors, while referrals remain the most common source of advisor discovery, 49% of surveyed clients with at least $5 million in assets found their advisor without a referral. Further, only 31% of this group found their advisor exclusively through a referral (indicating they used other resources to learn more about the referred advisor and/or other available options). Investors under age 45 were less likely than their older counterparts to rely on referrals, with 59% finding their advisor without a referral and only 8% relying on a referral exclusively. In addition to 'traditional' digital research tools (e.g., Google searches, YouTube, online reviews), AI chatbots also appear to be influencing advisor selection, with 9% of respondents (including 15% amongst those with at least $5 million in assets and 25% of those under age 45) saying that they used one of these tools when searching for an advisor.

In the end, while referrals appear to remain a favored approach by financial advisors and prospective clients alike, advisors appear to have an opportunity to reach those who don't receive a referral and/or want to dig in further after receiving one. Which could mean, amongst other potential tactics, making themselves more 'discoverable' (e.g., through Search Engine Optimization [SEO] and/or, amidst growing use of AI chatbots, Answer Engine Optimization [AEO]), finding ways to differentiate themselves from other sources of advice, or perhaps leveraging endorsements and testimonials to provide additional 'social proof' of the value of their services.

The Risk Premium For Holding Stocks Over Bonds Is Vanishing

(Hannah Erin Lang and Sam Goldfarb | The Wall Street Journal)

While the future movement of the stock market is very challenging to predict, certain data points can provide context into the current environment and potential signs of what future returns might look like. One of these measures is the so-called "equity risk premium", which compares the earnings yield on stocks (representing an estimate of stocks' expected returns) with yields on Treasury securities (representing a 'guaranteed' return).

Notably, the equity risk premium (defined here by comparing the expected earnings yield for the S&P 500 over the next year to the yield of the 10-year Treasury note) has nearly vanished, suggesting that a rough gauge of stocks' expected forward-looking returns is only slightly higher than what 'safe' government bonds would be expected to produce. Looking back, the equity risk premium reached as high as 8% in the early 2010s, as near-zero interest rates and the severe market downturn associated with the financial crisis offered a potentially attractive environment for equities (which ended up coming to fruition over the next decade in the form of strong returns for the S&P 500). However, the recent increase in bond yields (likely influenced in part by increased inflation expectations amidst a spike in oil prices) alongside elevated equity valuations (possibly due in part to some investors anticipating potential outsized returns from Artificial Intelligence-related developments) have contributed to the narrowing of the equity risk premium.

Nonetheless, while a narrowing of the equity risk premium might be suggestive of the potential for lower equity returns in relative terms, it's not necessarily an immediate timing indicator (e.g., the equity risk premium has been below 2% since approximately 2023 and stocks have performed quite well in the years since then). Also, the variables that go into the equity risk premium could change and signal a better environment for stocks, whether by companies experiencing significant earnings growth and/or Treasury yields falling (perhaps if oil prices dropped and inflation expectations cooled).

Ultimately, the key point is that while the equity risk premium based on the S&P 500 might be signaling a relatively unfavorable environment for U.S. large cap stocks, it's not necessarily a signal for long-term investors to consider changing their asset allocation. Nonetheless, attention to it could lead to client questions about their portfolio and an opportunity for advisors to provide additional context into what it actually measures (and does or doesn't signal) and how the client's asset allocation is designed to weather different market environments and meet their specific financial goals!

The Case For Locking In 3% Real Returns

(Bob Elliott | Nonconsensus)

Recent months have seen an increase in interest rates and bond yields, which can be painful for borrowers but a potential boon for investors. In particular, investors looking for fixed income exposure while protecting against a potential rise in inflation might find Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) an attractive option.

Elliott notes that 30-year TIPS yields are approaching 3%, a multi-decade high (and far surpassing the near-zero yields seen earlier this decade). While investors might be attracted to TIPS anyway for their ability to at least match inflation, current yields might also have some considering whether the available real return of TIPS might be attractive compared to other fixed income categories (which aren't adjusted for inflation) or even equities (at least on a risk-adjusted basis). While investors with a longer time horizon and who put a priority on appreciation might continue to lean heavily on equities, those with a shorter timeline and known, specific spending needs (e.g., those nearing and in retirement) might find TIPS attractive. For instance, creating a "TIPS ladder" with maturities matching known spending needs can provide greater confidence that they can handle different inflationary environments (though a particular individual's spending might not exactly match the 'basket' of goods and services used to determine the inflation rate), while today's yields also offer the possibility of additional growth beyond 'just' matching inflation.

In the end, while an allocation to TIPS might not be appropriate for every investor, the ability to lock in a nearly 3% real return over a 30-year period (with lower, though still well above 0, yields available for shorter terms) could be attractive to those who are risk-sensitive, concerned about inflation, and/or who want to lock in a real rate of return to meet known upcoming spending needs. Which could provide an opportunity for advisors to reduce market-related stress for interested clients!

With Inflation On The Rise, I Bonds Could Lure Investors Again

(Paulina Cachero | Bloomberg News)

At the end of 2021, Americans faced a dilemma over what to do with their cash; while rising inflation was eating away at their purchasing power, bank savings accounts and similar products were paying paltry rates that lagged well behind rising prices. But the rising inflation rate raised the profile of a product that had been largely neglected during the previous few decades of relatively low inflation: the I Bond. And while today's I Bond yields pale in comparison to those available at that time, an uptick in inflation could make them an attractive option for certain investors.

I Bonds are offered via the Treasury Department, can be purchased through the TreasuryDirect website, and are backed by the U.S. government. What makes I Bonds unique is their interest structure, which consists of a combined "Fixed Rate" and "Inflation Rate" that, together, make a "Composite Rate" – the actual rate of interest that an I Bond will earn over a six-month period. Currently, the "Composite Rate" sits at 4.26% (with a fixed portion of 0.90%, meaning the I Bond will offer a premium above inflation), which could make it attractive for those looking for a low-risk vehicle to park cash (though there are some conditions imposed on those buying I Bonds [e.g., they must be held for at least one year and those who cash them in before five years forfeit the previous three months' interest]).

Another restriction on I Bonds is that individuals can only purchase up to $10,000 of the bonds each year, though there are several ways around this restriction. For example, because the limit applies per tax ID, married spouses could each purchase $10,000 worth of I Bonds and purchase an additional $10,000 worth of I Bonds in each of their children's names (so that a family of four could purchase $40,000 worth of I Bonds). Individuals can also elect to purchase up to $5,000 worth of I Bonds with their tax refund by filling out Form 8888. In addition, individuals can purchase I Bonds through trusts, corporations, or LLCs they control using the entity's employer identification number.

In the end, the current rate of return for I Bonds could represent an attractive opportunity for certain financial planning clients to help their cash keep pace with inflation and advisors can help them explore ways to purchase more than the $10,000 individual limit. However, given the liquidity restraints and other restrictions on I Bonds, advisors can also offer value by working with clients to first consider how I Bonds might fit within the client's broader asset allocation and cash management plan!

Latest Trustees Report Moves Up Social Security Depletion Date To 2032

(Lorie Konish | CNBC)

Each year, the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds issue a report on the current and projected financial status of the two programs. In recent years, the report has been sounding a warning when it comes to the projected health of the Social Security program, particularly with regard to the status of the trust fund that is currently being tapped to pay out full retirement and survivor benefits (as current payroll tax receipts aren't sufficient to meet the total cost of benefits).

According to the latest edition of the trustees' report, released this week, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund is estimated to be exhausted in the fourth quarter of 2032, three months earlier than was expected as of last June. If the OASI trust fund were to be depleted, the system would be expected to be able to pay out 78% of scheduled benefits (funded by ongoing payroll tax receipts). Which would be a major haircut, particularly for current beneficiaries who rely on Social Security benefits to fund their lifestyle needs (though some individuals might have expected to receive no benefits if the trust fund ran out).

That said, there remains time for Congress to act to shore up the Social Security system in advance of the expected depletion date (which is subject to change in the coming years based on a variety of factors, including the size of the labor force and employee productivity, among others). To start, the OASI trust fund could be combined with the trust fund for the Disability Insurance program (which is in much better health). According to the latest trustees' report, such a move would push out the exhaustion date of the combined fund to the third quarter of 2034 (at which point 83% of benefits would be payable). For the longer-term health of the Social Security program, though, additional changes would be required, which could include tax increases, benefit reductions, or a combination of the two.

Altogether, while Social Security is still expected to be able to pay out full benefits for the next 5+ years, a potential broad-based benefit cut would come soon after. Given the massive shock this would cause, it would seem likely that Congress will want to act to shore up the system, though, given the 'pain' many potential solutions would cause, it's possible a resolution might not come until the last minute (as was the case when a similar situation arose in the early 1980s)?

Can Equity Investments Help Social Security's Finances?

(Anqi Chen, Alicia Munnell, and Jean-Pierre Aubry | Center for Retirement Research at Boston College)

With the Social Security trust fund expected to be depleted sometime in the early 2030s, policy changes would need to be made in order to avoid an across-the-board reduction in benefits. A problem, though, is that these changes would be 'painful' for the public, whether in the form of tax increases (e.g., increasing the payroll tax or increasing the maximum earnings subject to Social Security taxation) and/or benefit reductions (e.g., increasing the retirement age or capping the maximum benefit), which serves as a headwind to legislative action.

Amidst this backdrop, Senators Bill Cassidy and Tim Kaine have proposed a plan that purports to close the Social Security shortfall by borrowing $1.5 trillion dollars to create a separate investment fund that would be invested in equities and other risky assets for 75 years, at which point the investment proceeds would repay the Treasury with interest, with the remainder offsetting the $25.1 trillion in borrowing to close the system's 75-year funding gap. Which, on the surface, would seem to be more attractive than tax increases or benefit reductions.

In a research paper, Chen, Munnell, and Aubry examine whether the Cassidy-Kaine plan would be able to fill Social Security's funding gap under a range of scenarios. At a broad level, they find that particularly optimistic return assumptions are needed to have high confidence that the plan would be able to fill the entire gap. For instance, using Monte Carlo analysis and assuming a historical real rate of return of 6.5%, the plan failed to meet its objectives (including paying back all of the borrowing) in 64 out of 100 outcomes (potentially leaving the public with additional debt). Using a real rate of return of 4.0% provides an even bleaker picture, with the plan failing 83 out of every 100 times.

That said, the authors do see a potential role for equity investments when coupled with some of the more 'painful' policy measures to restore Social Security to solvency (particularly if these actions are taken sooner rather than later). Given that Social Security trust fund assets are currently invested in special-issue Treasury securities (that have similar yields to publicly available Treasuries), a higher assumed return for equities (and a long time horizon that could allow it to weather market downturns) could provide a boost to the trust fund and help the system handle future stressors (e.g., a shrinking labor force or longer lifespans). For instance, the researchers find that if measures were taken today to close the current Social Security funding gap and 40% of trust fund assets were invested in equities, the system would be expected to be able to pay out full benefits through 2100.

In sum, while a plan to restore Social Security to solvency that relies on debt issuance and equity investments alone could be a risky bet, it doesn't necessarily mean that equity investments don't have a place in Social Security's finances. That said, because the effectiveness of deploying trust fund assets into equities could depend on actually having assets in the trust fund to invest, the sooner action is taken to fill the Social Security funding gap, the more effective this strategy would be.

Helping Nervous Clients Understand The (True) State Of The Social Security System And What It Means For Their Retirement

(Nerd's Eye View)

Given the frequent news headlines on the (un)sustainability of the Social Security system, many working-age financial advisory clients might harbor doubts about receiving their full estimated Social Security benefits (and many current Social Security recipients might be concerned that they will not continue to receive their full benefits throughout the remainder of their lives). In this environment, financial advisors have the opportunity to add value for their clients not only by giving a clear explanation about the current status of Social Security and the potential legislative changes that could improve its solvency, but also by modeling what (realistic) changes would mean for their clients' financial plans.

To start, while the state of Social Security's trust fund reserves often receives significant media attention, in reality, the bulk of funding for paying out Social Security benefits comes from Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes, more commonly known as payroll taxes (with workers and their employers each paying 6.2% on up to $184,500 of income in 2026 for the Social Security portion of FICA). Which means that even if the trust fund reserves were to become depleted, the system would continue to pay the majority of benefits that are simply covered by the ongoing receipt of significant payroll tax revenue.

Nonetheless, given the disruption that a reduction of benefits would cause recipients of Social Security retirement benefits (particularly those who rely on such benefits for a significant percentage of their retirement income), policymakers have an incentive to enact measures that would allow the system to continue paying out full benefits for decades to come. Such options include single-policy solutions that would wipe out the entire 75-year shortfall (e.g., the most recent board of trustees report estimates that an immediate 4.25 percentage point increase in the payroll tax or a 25.2% reduction in benefits would allow for full benefits to be paid during this period) or a (perhaps more politically feasible) combination of policies that address system revenues and/or costs (e.g., raising the payroll tax wage cap or increasing the Full Retirement Age) that would close the funding gap.

Ultimately, the key point is that financial advisors have the opportunity to add value for their clients by providing context on the state of Social Security (e.g., even if the trust funds are exhausted, the system would still be able to pay out the majority of scheduled benefits) and potential legislative fixes (which, depending on the legislation passed, might not be as severe as some clients assume), as well as leveraging financial planning tools to show the impact of the possible trust fund exhaustion and/or potential policy actions on each client's financial plan (both in dollar terms and how it changes the probability of success of their plan). Which, together, could provide clients with a more realistic picture of what changes to Social Security could mean for their unique situation!

You Can't Take It With You

(Derek Hagen | Meaningful Money)

A well-known Aesop fable describes an ant and a grasshopper. The former spends the summer collecting food and supplies for the winter, while the latter spends its days pursuing leisure. When winter eventually comes, however, the Grasshopper dies due to lack of preparedness while the ant survives. Translating this fable to the world of personal finance would suggest the value of saving over spending and leisure.

However, Hagen suggests that while saving and investing for the future is no doubt important (particularly when it comes to retirement, when an individual no longer has income from a job), amassing money for its own sake is unlikely to be fulfilling. Which suggests that while full-time hedonism might not be the answer, there is much to be gained from actually spending money that has been earned and/or saved (though switching from 'saving' mode to 'spending' mode can be a challenge for some individuals!).

This ethos is at the core of investor and author Bill Perkins' book "Die With Zero", in which he argues in favor of an approach that prioritizes spending now, so that the depletion of one's assets is aligned with one's death. Notably, such spending not only could include personal expenses like travel (which an individual might not be able to pursue as their health deteriorates over time), but also could include gifting to loved ones or charities (who might prefer to have the money now rather than when the benefactor dies), which provides an individual with the added benefit of being able to see their generosity put to work.

In the end, while financial 'survival' is important, merely making it through life without running out of money isn't necessarily the same as thriving. Which suggests that finding opportunities to leverage an individual's assets to pursue experiences that create a more fulfilling life could be a good 'investment', even if it means their account balances decline in value. It also suggests a valuable role for financial advisors in helping clients identify when their assets might support more spending (including gifting and/or charitable giving) or when they might consider cutting back (to avoid depleting their assets)!

The Dangerous Allure Of "Dying With Zero"

(Jordan Grumet | The Purpose Code)

While much personal financial advice centers on the value of saving and investing, the "Die With Zero" movement has gained attention in recent years with its emphasis on spending on 'wants' today instead of (perhaps perpetually) delaying it, which could result in significant assets left at one's death. Grumet argues, however, that when taken literally, attempting to "Die With Zero" could leave individuals with significant regrets.

To start, he suggests that the risks of spending too little and too much have asymmetric outcomes. For instance, while it might 'hurt' somewhat to have money left in the bank at death (in the form of considering what it could have been spent on during one's life), it would almost certainly be more 'painful' to exhaust one's assets well before death. Which suggests that trying to cut things too close in order to literally "Die With Zero" could present unwanted (and perhaps unnecessary) risks. In addition, strict adherence to a "Die With Zero" philosophy could end up resulting in more stress if an individual constantly worries whether they're truly 'maxing out' their life (the mirror image of those who stress about how every purchase they make will affect their future savings).

Grumet also cites the concept of diminishing marginal utility, where the enjoyment of something declines the more it is consumed. For example, while going on one luxury vacation each year could be very enjoyable and quite memorable, going on four major trips per year might not provide 4X the benefits (suggesting that such spending could have diminishing returns and might be instead applied to provide additional financial security). Finally, focusing on spending money as efficiently as possible to maximize enjoyment could lead an individual to spend less time on finding deeper meaning and fulfillment in life (which could provide greater satisfaction than what can be purchased with money).

In sum, while an introduction to the "Die With Zero" mindset could be helpful to loosen the budgets of those who are on a path of accumulating more money than could reasonably use during their retirements, swinging too far in the other direction could prove to be financially risky and perhaps lead to greater stress. Which suggests that a focus on spending on what an individual truly values (and recognizing that some of the most meaningful aspects of life, from relationships to a sense of purpose, can cost very little or nothing at all) could lead to a greater sense of fulfillment.

The Business Of Life Is The Acquisition Of Memories

(Ben Carlson | A Wealth Of Common Sense)

One of the challenges of financial planning is the inherent uncertainty of the future, whether in terms of an individual's lifespan or market returns (the sequence of which can play a major role in how much an individual might be able to spend in retirement). Which can create a perpetual dilemma of spending more today versus saving more for the future.

Certain factors might tip the scales towards spending more today. For instance, while an individual might expect to live until a certain age (based on actuarial tables as well as personal and family health history), their "healthspan", or the number of years they have in good health (and in which more physically demanding tasks can be enjoyed) is likely to be much shorter (suggesting that certain demanding trips or activities might be best moved forward towards today). Also, certain experiences have an expiration date. For instance, parents only have a certain number of years to spend time with their children on a full-time basis before they move on to adulthood and might be less available (cue "Cat's in the Cradle"), which could argue for spending more on experiences with them today (in part to create memories that can be recalled over time).

On the other side of the ledger, it can be tempting to spend more today (as the rewards are immediate) at the cost of saving less for a future that is years, or decades away. Nevertheless, given the possibility for an extended lifespan, saving today represents a 'gift' to one's future self to enjoy a more comfortable standard of living in later years.

Ultimately, the key point is that finding balance between spending on today and saving for tomorrow can be a challenge. Which puts financial advisors in a particularly helpful position by being able to leverage planning tools and strategies to show clients how spending today will effect their financial future and giving them greater confidence that the path they've chosen for themselves is both meaningful and sustainable.

We hope you enjoyed the reading! Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts, or send an email to [email protected] to suggest any articles you think would be a good fit for a future column!

In the meantime, if you're interested in more news and information regarding advisor technology, we'd highly recommend checking out Craig Iskowitz's "WealthTech Today" blog.