Weekend Reading For Financial Planners (March 7–8)

Cerulli Data Shows That RIA Firms Are Changing The Game For Broker-Dealers' Advisor Recruitment

(Leo Almazora | InvestmentNews)

The long-term nature of advisor-client relationships means that they tend to be quite sticky: When an advisor works with a client over years or decades, the client often tends to think of themselves as a client of the advisor, not necessarily of the firm that the advisor works for. This stickiness has the effect of making it relatively easy for advisors to switch from one employer or advisor platform to another: No matter what the advisor's old firm does to prevent (or at least delay) them from taking their clients with them (e.g., through the use of noncompete and nonsolicit clauses and other legal maneuvers), the likeliest outcome will be that most or all of the advisor's clients from the old firm will remain clients with the advisor at their new firm since the clients themselves are free to follow the advisor wherever they go.

Recent research from the consulting firm Cerulli serves to underscore just how mobile advisors are now, with the study estimating that 9% of all advisors (in the neighborhood of 25,000 advisors in aggregate) changed from one firm to another in 2025. But this movement isn't just advisors hopping from one firm to another: It has disproportionately taken the form of advisors moving from the broker-dealer channel into the independent or hybrid RIA channels. Cerulli's numbers show that over the last decade the growth of RIA assets has outpaced that of financial services industry as a whole, with RIA assets growing by 12.2% annually from 2014-2024 versus 10.9% for the industry. And over that time, RIA assets as a share of the total industry AUM also increased from 21% to 27%.

The ongoing trend of movement of assets from broker-dealers to the RIA channel puts pressure on broker-dealer firms to find new ways to recruit and retain advisors. Historically, broker-dealer firms focused on recruiting advisors from other broker-dealers by tweaking payout grids and offering upfront "bonuses" (which are usually just loans that are paid back over time by revenue generated by the broker-dealer from the advisor's clients). But while those kinds of incentives might work in the zero-sum game of recruitment within the broker-dealer world (since broker-dealer firms that lose advisors to other firms' recruiting incentives can always use their own incentives to recruit other firms' advisors), they aren't as effective against the pull of the RIA channel: when RIAs offer a more independent and autonomous work environment than the centralized broker-dealer structure and allow advisors to focus on the client rather than making sales, it requires stronger (and increasingly expensive) incentives for wirehouses and IBDs to convince their advisors to stay.

Cerulli suggests that broker-dealer firms (and wirehouse firms in particular) could enhance their incentive structures to mirror some of the aspects of the RIA channel that advisors find appealing, such as offering equity compensation and more operational staff and technology support. But while better economic incentives might make a small dent in the exodus from the broker-dealer channel, it's arguable that they don't go far enough beyond the pay grid enhancements and recruitment bonuses that have so far failed to keep advisors from moving to the RIA channel. Because when much of what draws advisors to RIAs is cultural – i.e., to work in an environment that at core is about serving clients rather than meeting sales goals – there's only so much more that can be gained by putting more money on the table. And in the end, the reality remains that when advisors move their business model itself away from selling products and into the delivery of advice, from a regulatory perspective they just literally don't need to maintain a FINRA license (and an affiliation with a broker-dealer) in the first place. As a result, advisors (and their clients) will likely continue to go to the channel and the firm that gives them what they want – the ability to deliver and get compensated for advice to their clients, unfettered by product sales expectations and regulations, which augurs for continued difficulty for broker-dealer firms continuing to compete with RIAs?

Fidelity Hails Rise Of 'Adjacency Acquisitions' (From Tax Practices To Family Offices) In Banner M&A Year

(Sam Bojarski | Citywire RIA)

One continuing story in the advisory industry for the last several years has been the seemingly endless cycle of M&A activity. Each year hundreds of RIA acquisitions are announced, with most of those being made by a couple of dozen "strategic acquirer" mega-RIAs like Wealth Enhancement Group, Mercer Advisors, and Mariner Wealth Advisors. Which comes primarily in response to the fact that, with RIAs overall struggling to exceed organic growth rates in the mid-single-digits, the quicker and easier route to growth and scale (with enough capital backing) is to simply buy other RIAs and their client bases rather than making riskier investments into organic growth strategies which can take far longer to bear fruit.

But the high demand for acquisition targets (and the seemingly bottomless pool of PE dollars to fund acquisitions) also runs up against the reality that there are only so many RIAs that can be acquired. And while there's not necessarily a shortage of potential acquisition targets (as there are still far more RIAs being created than acquired each year), the years-long acquisition spree has left less "low-hanging fruit" for strategic acquirers to pick from, with more acquirers chasing a fewer number of mature advisory firms that can be easily tucked into their service model. Which ultimately makes it more costly and/or complicated to keep growing through acquisition of RIAs alone.

As a result, as Fidelity highlights in its 2025 "Year in Review" of M&A activity, strategic acquirers are increasingly seeking to not only make acquisitions of other RIAs, but also "adjacency acquisitions" of other types of businesses that complement the RIA's service model. Most often these are CPA firms that allow the RIA to offer tax planning and preparation to their clients, but they can also include areas like family office-style services for ultra-high-net-worth clients or investment banking and succession planning for business owners.

The interesting thing about these acquisitions is that they're not necessarily aimed directly at increasing the firm's AUM (although naturally there's an opportunity for an RIA to cross-sell to clients of an RIA-adjacent business that it acquires). Instead they're more about increasing the firm's value proposition through a broader range of services or deeper planning expertise – all of which are much more aligned with an organic rather than an inorganic growth strategy. As it's become increasingly challenging to find M&A deals at attractive valuations, in other words, the needle is shifting back to growth through attracting more clients and/or offering more valuable services to existing clients (and charging for them commensurately) – i.e., to grow organically, with a value proposition that's expanding beyond ‘just' investment management and traditional financial planning.

The key point is that even in a frenzied environment of PE-fueled acquisition, there's still a lot of pressure on advisory firms to provide – and continue to expand – value for their clients. Even though mega-RIAs can gain size and scale through acquisition, they still need their clients to stick around through the transition to make the investment worthwhile, and ideally the firms can add clients organically without needing to go through an acquisition to get them. So for all the focus on M&A and inorganic growth, it's notable to see some of the biggest RIAs focus (slightly) less on direct AUM acquisition and more on using their acquisition capital to start building out more comprehensive financial services models – because as it turns out, the organic growth that is the lifeblood of the smallest firms in the RIA landscape also matters to the biggest firms.

Mass Market AI Tools Failed 85% Of Investment Tasks In New Study

(Alec Rich | Citywire RIA)

Much of the rise in popularity of general-purpose AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude has come from their usefulness as "answer engines". Whereas doing research on a question or topic once required typing that question into a search engine and clicking through links to find a trustworthy answer, it can now be accomplished by asking an AI chatbot that scans the web and generates the answer itself. In other words, AI tools do all the legwork of finding the right information so they can answer the question more quickly and reliably than a human could on their own. Right?

Well, the caveat with AI models is that while the answers that they generate may be clear and reasonable-sounding, they aren't always correct. Early versions of ChatGPT and other tools were notorious for hallucinating information and giving confidently wrong answers to even basic questions. And although they've improved somewhat since then, general-purpose AI tools still tend to be very unreliable when it comes to tasks involving math or synthesizing large and complex data sets – such as those involved in doing investment analysis.

To show just how much general-purpose AI tools tend to fall short in investment analysis, researchers from the AI investment research technology DeepVest tested several tools (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Grok, and Claude) on how they performed on various investment workflows, including calculations of portfolio correlations, fundamental analysis, and backtested portfolio performance among others. The results were striking: the general-purpose AI tools failed 85% of these tasks. In many cases, the AI tools failed to generate a response at all after struggling to connect with the right data sources for the question being asked. But more alarmingly, in most of the cases when the AI tools did generate an answer those answers were far from correct (and sometimes they even gave multiple incorrect answers when asked the same question more than one time).

The key point is that while general-purpose AI tools might be helpful for some tasks like rewriting a section of text or generating a first draft of an email, their capabilities at actually answering all but the most basic questions still fall significantly short. For what it's worth, some providers have taken steps to make their tools more reliable in advisor-specific contexts, such as ChatGPT embedding access to Morningstar and Pitchbook data (but only for advisors with licenses for those platforms) and Anthropic announcing so-called "wealth management plugins" and a partnership with LPL to develop customized AI tools for LPL's advisors. But (at the very least) for advisors and anyone else using the general-purpose versions of those tools, there's still very clearly a need to check their work – which raises the question of whether there is really any savings in time or energy from asking the AI tool to begin with?

Estimated Taxes Are A Pain. Here's How To Avoid Costly Penalties.

(Laura Saunders | Wall Street Journal)

Tax planning is a core service for many financial advisors, who provide guidance for their clients on how to (legally) pay the least amount of tax over their lifetime. But long-term tax planning doesn't always get into the specifics of how those taxes will actually be paid. And for many people – particularly those like retirees and self-employed workers who don't have taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks – the mechanics of making estimated tax payments (and avoiding penalties on underpayments or late payments) can be a significant planning challenge in their own right.

At a high level, the IRS requires taxpayers to pay the tax they owe on income throughout the year, with quarterly estimated tax payments required if automatic withholdings and credits don't cover at least 90% of the individual's total tax liability. The problem, however, is that the complexity of the tax code often makes it incredibly difficult to calculate how much tax will be due on a given quarter's worth of income (or how much income was even earned during the quarter, since investment income like dividends and capital gains is often reinvested and thus not actually "seen" by the investor unless they proactively look it up on their monthly statements). And while it might be easiest to wait until the end of the year when there's a clearer picture of the taxpayer's income for the year, the IRS charges penalties and interest (currently 7% annualized) if a taxpayer doesn't pay estimated tax payments for the quarter in which the income was earned – e.g., if an individual realizes a large capital gain in January but doesn't pay estimated tax until December, they could end up owing three quarters' worth of underpayment penalties when they file their tax return for the year.

The IRS does allow a safe harbor whereby taxpayers who pay estimated taxes that add up to at least 100% of the tax that they owed on their prior year return (or 110% if their prior year adjusted gross income was $150,000 or more) can avoid underpayment penalties. Which means that taxpayers who don't want to bother with calculating their estimated tax throughout the year based on their actual income can set up all their estimated tax payments in advance, e.g., by scheduling a direct debit for 25% of their prior-year tax on each of the quarterly tax due dates of April 15, June 15, September 15, and January 15. The caveat, however, is that if the taxpayer owes more tax in one year than in the prior year, they'll need to make up the difference when they file their tax return in April – which could result in a large surprise tax bill if there's a significant increase in income from one year to the next.

Financial advisors can help their clients with paying estimated taxes and avoiding underpayment penalties in a number of ways. At one level, they can explain the two main options (paying predetermined quarterly payments based on the prior year's tax liability or calculating each quarter's income and the resulting estimated tax), and help clients understand the tradeoff between the simplicity of the prior-year method and the accuracy of the current-year method. Additionally, they can be proactive in communicating with the client's tax professional about the client's income received throughout the year (especially investment income, which the advisor can likely pull directly from their custodian or portfolio management system) to improve the accuracy of quarterly estimate calculations. Or advisors can even help clients estimate quarterly tax payments themselves by running projections in their tax planning software (although this would likely be considered "tax advice" for which the advisor would take on liability for any miscalculations and resulting underpayment penalties that might occur). Advisors can even strategize on how to use the rules around withholdings and estimated payments to their advantage, such as by using withholdings from IRAs and other retirement accounts to pay the bulk of the client's tax liability at the end of the year (while being treated for underpayment purposes as being paid throughout the year).

The key point is that tax withholding planning is really its own subset of tax planning, with its own strategies, techniques, and tradeoffs that vary from client to client. And as the tax code ratchets up in complexity with each new tax law that's passed, making it ever harder to intuitively grasp how much tax will be owed on a given pot of income, advisors can increasingly add value by deepening their understanding of the rules and strategies around tax withholding – so their clients can not only owe the legal minimum amount of tax on their income, but also pay the minimum amount (or at least experience the minimum amount of hassle in doing so)!

A Remedy For Missed IRA Distributions

(Eric Rasmussen | Financial Advisor)

The tax rules for traditional IRAs and 401(k) plans represent a bargain of sorts between the tax code and individuals saving for retirement. While working, individuals can contribute to these accounts and deduct or exclude the amount of the contribution from their income, and the account can grow in value without incurring tax on any investment income it generates. But when the worker retires and start to withdraw their savings, they owe tax on the amounts that they withdraw (plus all the accumulated growth from throughout the years). And to make sure that the U.S. eventually gets the chance to tax those dollars, traditional IRA and 401(k) account owners must begin taking annual Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) from their accounts which currently begin at age 73 (though that age is scheduled to increase to 75 for individuals born in 1959 or later under the SECURE Act 2.0).

Historically, the statutory tax penalty for missed RMDs has been one of the harshest penalties in the Internal Revenue Code. Prior to 2023, the missed RMD penalty was 50% of the shortfall (i.e., if an individual was require to take a $10,000 distribution but missed it entirely, they would owe a $5,000 penalty, plus any tax that they would normally owe on the distribution). The SECURE Act 2.0 reduced that penalty to 25%, or ‘only' 10% if the shortfall is corrected within two years. But despite being significantly lower now, these penalties can still add up quickly for a taxpayer with large and/or multiple missed RMDs. Which is especially problematic in cases where individuals are experiencing cognitive decline or other health problems that cause them to miss one or more RMDs.

Fortunately, the IRS allows individuals to request a waiver of the missed RMD penalty in cases where the shortfall was due to reasonable error and reasonable steps are being taken to remedy it, which can be done by filing Form 5329. In practice, the IRS has taken a fairly broad view of what constitutes "reasonable error", ranging from cognitive issues like Alzheimer's disease to incorrect advice received from a CPA or other advisor to significant life events that caused the RMD to be lost in the shuffle. And "reasonable steps" tends to mean withdrawing any missed RMDs prior to filing Form 5329 (so the IRS can see that the penalty waiver is being requested in good faith and is not simply an attempt to further avoid making RMDs) – and notably, taxpayers don't need to prepay the missed RMD penalty before filing for the waiver; instead, they can simply file Form 5329 and either owe no penalty (if the IRS grants the penalty waiver) or be assessed for some or all of the penalty (if the IRS denies the waiver).

In the big picture, compared to the many complications and challenges that can come along with clients aging, a missed RMD might seem relatively insignificant. But at the same time, the work of remedying a missed RMD and the high potential penalty tax involved add unnecessary hassle and complexity to a client's life. Ultimately, it's best to have a system for keeping track of RMDs and following up with clients prior to the end of the year in which they owe an RMD to make sure it's taken in the first place – but if for some reason an RMD falls through the cracks, there's at least a method for making sure it doesn't cost the client in tax penalties for a missed RMD that wasn't their fault.

Missed Depreciation On A Rental? Why Amending Prior Returns Is Usually The Wrong Move

(Rich Arzaga | The Real Estate Whisperer)

There are a number of tax benefits associated with investing in real estate, but one of the biggest ones is depreciation. Rental or investment property owners are allowed to deduct the cost of the property (plus any subsequent improvements they make, like new floors or a deck) over a set number of years – typically 27.5 years for a residential property and 39 years for a commercial property. However, not everyone is aware of the ability to deduct depreciation if they aren't an expert in tax or real estate investing: For instance, a family that moves to a new house but opts to keep their old one as a rental, or someone who buys a second home to rent out to their parents, might not be aware of the ability to depreciate those properties. And so advisors might come across situations with new clients where they'll realize upon reviewing the client's tax return that they haven't taken depreciation for one or more (or potentially many) years since they began using the property as a rental. Or even if they did deduct depreciation it's possible that, given the many different depreciation methods for different forms of depreciable property, the clients might have used the wrong depreciation schedule and inadvertently deducted more or less depreciation than what they were allowed to.

In most cases, the remedy when noticing an error on a prior year tax return is to file an amended return for that year. However, the IRS requires a different process when it comes to correcting errors in depreciation. Taxpayers must file Form 3115, which is technically an application to change the accounting method used for a business or property, but is necessary in this case because in a literal sense the taxpayer is changing from one depreciation method (e.g., taking the wrong amount of depreciation or no depreciation at all) to another method (the correct amount of depreciation). And at the same time that they file Form 3115, the taxpayer must also make a "Section 418(a) adjustment" to make up the difference between the amount of depreciation that they were allowed to take over the life of the property and what they actually did take.

The upshot is that, in contrast to filing multiple years of amended tax returns to make the necessary corrections to the taxpayer's depreciation deductions, filing Form 3115 allows the taxpayer to catch themselves up all at once. What's more, in cases where the taxpayer has significantly underreported depreciation over the years, the resulting Sec. 418(a) adjustment can end up creating a large tax deduction as all that additional depreciation is made up for at once – which in turn can create a number of tax planning opportunities, from making Roth conversions or realizing capital gains to lowering income for Medicare or college financial aid purposes.

Ultimately, it's worth remembering that in most cases depreciation is only a temporary deduction: Any amounts that are deducted for depreciation ultimately go to increase the capital gains realized when the property is eventually sold. But while the depreciation deduction is generally taken at ordinary income tax rates, the capital gains on the sale are taxed at lower long-term capital gains rates (one of the many other tax benefits associated with real estate investing!). So even though Form 3115 is complex and will likely require paying a CPA or EA to fill out and file, it's most likely worth it to make sure that the client can get the benefit of the depreciation deductions they were entitled to in the first place.

What RIAs Can Learn About Talent Management From McKinsey, Bain And BCG

(Andrew Leonard and Julie Higgins | CityWire)

Building a capable advisory firm team is an exciting, complex, and ongoing process. Screening and hiring talent that actually fits the RIA's vision and culture is a task in itself. First, RIAs must hire talent who not only fit the firm's vision and culture, but they must train them well in order to actually delegate their work. Then, they need to retain their trained staff.

Neither of these steps are easy, but advisors can look to large consulting firms, which famously recruit, train, and retain high-achieving professionals with remarkable results, for a roadmap to follow. Consulting firms like McKinsey, Bain, and BCG, for example, value culture fit and aptitude over outright experience, often hiring candidates from nontraditional backgrounds. Then, these firms invest in developing the new employees relentlessly – approximately 25% of each firm's resources are invested in hiring or mentoring. This in turn creates a positive, self-reinforcing cycle: talented people want to work with talented people!

Advisory firms may not have the same breadth of resources as the ‘big three' consulting firms, but the principles are the same. A clearcut onboarding plan with a clear path to delegate real work responsibilities at a reasonable pace will go a long way. Additionally, good compensation with a transparent route to continual growth opportunities can help motivate and retain talented employees.

Ultimately, a continual and conscious reinvestment in not just growing the firm, but improving the team experience, can go a long way for advisory firm owners. And by being transparent about the resources available – and rewarding those who articulate a desire to grow – RIAs can build a remarkable team in the long-term!

5 Mistakes Wealth Management Firms Should Avoid With Internship Programs

(Cheryl Winokur Munk | Barron's)

Ideally, internships can be a great opportunity for both advisory firms and young professionals. The young professional gets their first chances to gain legitimate professional experience and mentorship, while the firm can find a way to gain next-generation talent and assistance on some advisory firm initiatives. In reality, however, not all internships are all that are promised – advisory firms may struggle to invest enough in the process to create either productive or a constructive experience for the intern.

A successful internship is more than just an intern's presence or ‘shadowing' – young professionals need legitimate work to do in order to develop their professional abilities. Advisory firms need to carefully consider what work they would have the intern do (e.g., having an intern ‘just do sales' is rarely a recipe for success). Great internship experiences contain some blend of structured mentorship, active projects, and opportunities for continual feedback. Advisory firms that can transparently communicate what they offer in terms of pay, structure, and the clients they serve are more likely to find interns who are a mutual fit. And when an intern joins the firm, keep in mind that they are likely still learning how to operate in a professional workplace, so they may need extra structure and encouragement to ask questions.

In sum, internships can provide a powerful opportunity to mentor the next generation while also increasing firm productivity… so long as advisory firms are strategic about how they structure the internship. But with conscious mentorship and a few iterations, advisory firms can build a strong program that gives great experience to the next generation of advisors!

Why Compensation Conversations Are a Leadership Strategy, Not an HR Exercise

(Kevin Goserud | Wealth Management)

Compensation – and growth opportunities – are arguably the key components of long-term team retention. Compensation is about more than ‘just' payment – it's also about incentivizing recruitment, retention, and growth of high-performing team member (as the saying goes, no compensation is more expensive than hiring and training a new team member!). Yet firm leaders must strike a careful balance between a compensation that retains top talent and the firm's overall profitability and long-term capacity for growth.

The key is to ensure that compensation-related conversations occur throughout the year, not just at the end-of-year. An end-of-year compensation conversation can leave employees off-balance and frustrated; ongoing dialogue ensures that the team member and manager are aligned continually.

Leaders can aim to continually connect individual employee performance with the firm's growth goals – especially the elements of firm growth that the employee can impact. And variable compensation and bonuses can be a powerful tool. According to Kitces Research on Advisor Wellbeing, advisors with variable compensation report higher levels of wellbeing than those whose compensation is entirely fixed – so long as they earn at least industry averages. Firms can use national and industry benchmarking as their starting point they may want to consider how incentives.

In short, compensation is both a powerful retention tool and can be a way for a firm to reiterate its values. Transparency and continual conversations are key to maintaining team satisfaction – and incentivizing increased productivity for continual growth!

Out of Control

(Michael Remedios | The Art Of Wandering)

"Past performance does not guarantee future results" is a popular phrase to set expectations in investment planning… and it also applies to life. Financial planners and clients alike aspire to control and anticipate all the elements they can… yet, as industry leader Carl Richards says, "Risk is what's left over when you've thought of everything".

So, how can advisors plan their clients for an imperfect, unpredictable world? Spending too much time ruminating over potential negative outcomes that ‘might' happen can more draining and distracting than productive. Even with risk tolerance assessments and "know your client" requirements, it can be hard for clients to anticipate how they may react to adverse circumstances. The answer often comes to build the best roadmap possible… and be ready for change.

If the client is truly worried amidst unpredictable tumults or life events, practices like reviewing guardrails and framing up retirement planning changes as ‘adjustments' can help affirm that there is a backup plan. But perhaps the most productive lens is to focus on what can be controlled in the short-term… and continually looking ahead on how to construct a future that continually aligns with what is most important to the client, while minimizing predictable risk.

At the end of the day, financial advisors can provide powerful guardrails and planning for the unexpected. Then, when (not if) life happens, they can provide great guidance for their clients and help them navigate the choppy waters of life!

How Getting Richer Made Teenagers Less Free

(Kelsey Piper | The Argument)

One of the fundamental goals of parents is to provide a better future for their children so that each generation lives a better life than the last. Parents also strive to raise children to be competent adults that can live independently and face the challenges of life with resilience and grace.

Humanity has made remarkable strides on quality of life in just the last century, and this has created compounding positive effects on health, wealth, and quality of life. Society values individual lives more than ever before.

At the same time, with this wealth and comfort comes some potential downsides. Namely,

children may be missing out on opportunities to overcome adversity and build independence. In a world where teenagers work less – even in gig work like babysitting – they may not have the structure to try, fail, and learn in safe environments. Even continually showing up to work with a good attitude is a skill that needs to be developed. Trying to shield teenagers from failure may have created a type of harm in itself – mental health outcomes for young adults have decreased over time.

At the same time, teenagers who find engaging, purposeful work can develop grit, confidence, and ownership over purposeful work can yield great benefits and skills. (And yes, they're likely to use their phones less.) Whether teenagers are babysitting, doing yardwork, or engaged in other challenging activities, that can help them build resilience to unexpected setbacks, events, and frustrations. Those are valuable lessons to learn before springboarding into adulthood!

Adopting A Two-Dimensional Risk Tolerance Assessment Process

(Michael Kitces | Nerd's Eye View)

Risk tolerance is one of the most fundamental parts of client intake. Yet any advisor will attest that risk tolerance questionnaires alone don't capture the full reality of most client's risk capacity. To capture a more holistic version of risk, advisors need to look beyond ‘just' how clients may react to market volatility. For example, considering risk tolerance (a client's personal willingness ability to withstand market changes) combined with risk capacity (their logistical portfolio capacity to withstand market changes while maintaining their lifestyle goals) can provide an illuminating look at a client's risk profile.

This same framework translates to many client decisions. For example, a client may have the (financial) capacity to withstand a job change, but not the (emotional) tolerance for it. Alternatively, a client may have a greater capacity for risk than their life or finances allow for.  Advisors can offer a point of balance. If a client is underspending and has room to experiment, then the advisor can help them experiment with ways to spend that align with their values. Conversely, if a client wants to take on more risk than their financial plan allows for, advisors can help them find a sustainable middle ground.

At the end of the day, risk tolerance is a measurement that intersects with many parts of a client's history, goals, and personal decisions. But considering risk in the light of the full dimensions of the client – beyond the questionnaire – can lead to more fruitful and engaging conversations in the long term!

---

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.