Weekend Reading For Financial Planners (September 19–20)

Authors:

Adam Van Deusen, CFP®

Team Kitces

Adam Van Deusen, CFP®, is a Financial Planning Nerd at Kitces.com, where he hosts the Financial Advisor Technician podcast, writes articles for the Nerd’s Eye View blog (including the popular Weekend Reading for Financial Advisors), and regularly speaks at industry events on a range of technical and practice management topics. He previously worked at a financial planning firm in the Washington, D.C. area 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.

+ Read More +

Sydney Squires

Team Kitces

Sydney Squires is Senior Financial Planning Nerd at Kitces.com, where she is a regular contributor and the producer of the Kitces & Carl podcast. After 7 years in various management, director, and strategic roles in the content strategy field, she now funnels her love of data, research, and processes through a content creator role. She has been a part of the Kitces.com Editorial team since February 2021 and has been a speaker at NAPFA and a contributing writer for various industry publications.

Outside of work, you can usually find her on a tennis court.

Read more of Sydney’s articles here.

+ Read More +

Ben Henry-Moreland

Team Kitces

Ben Henry-Moreland is a Senior Financial Planning Nerd at Kitces.com, where he specializes in writing and speaking on financial planning topics including tax, practice management, and technology. He also co-authors the monthly Kitces #AdvisorTech column. Drawing from his experience as a financial planner and a solo advisory firm owner, Ben is passionate about fulfilling the site’s mission of making financial advicers better and more successful.

Read more of Ben’s articles here.

+ Read More +

Anthropic Launches "Claude For Financial Advisors" Plug-In To Integrate Key AdvisorTech Providers

(Davis Janowski | Wealth Management)

As anyone who has browsed the Kitces Advisor Technology Map and Directory can tell, there is a robust AdvisorTech landscape, both across and within categories. When building their tech stacks, advisory firms will often look to find tools that integrate well with each other, so that multiple logins and manual data transfers aren't necessary to leverage the data from one tool with another (e.g., incorporating data from a CRM into financial planning software).

While individual tools have sought to increase their integrations with one another over the years, this week's announcement from Anthropic that it is releasing a financial advisor plug-in to its large language model Claude could serve as a major innovation when it comes to AdvisorTech integration. The firm partnered with a wide range of technology partners including Charles Schwab, Orion, Envestnet, Wealthbox, Wealth.com, and Zocks amongst others, offering advisors the potential to see their client data aggregated together across all of those connected platforms, to be integrated through the Claude platform for advisors to holistically engage with.

For its part, Anthropic said it's not trying to replace existing tools, but rather boosting advisor utilization amongst existing tools (comparing Claude to a "symphony conductor"). Though at the same time, it seems clear that Anthropic hopes it can become the "advisor desktop" that is the first and primary login for financial advisors, appealing to the common advisor frustration of otherwise having so many different platforms to log into every day to interact with clients. Yet at least in its current form, Claude for Financial Advisors operates in a 'read-only' format – appealing for firms that may be nervous about having AI gone-awry potentially writing (or overwriting) existing client data… yet if the Claude-for-Advisors interface is read-only, then advisors will still have to log into all their other platforms to do anything on behalf of clients. In addition, for both the sake of privacy, and Claude's own large-firm focus, Anthropic announced that at least for now, the Claude for Financial Advisors plug-in will require a Claude Enterprise license (which is appealing to the extent that Enterprise also has the most robust data privacy protections) with a 20-seat minimum (which is quite unappealing from a cost perspective for the bulk of advisory firms with less than $1B of AUM who would have to purchase more seats than they have employees just to gain access).

For those who can utilize, as with other advances in advisor technology, firms that are able to realize time savings through the use of Anthropic's new plug-in might consider how they will use any time savings gained (e.g., applied to business development efforts or spending more time with clients). The answer to this will be important, because the use of the new plug-in with its 20-seat Enterprise minimum comes with a hard dollar cost on top of what they already pay for their existing tech tools (and unlike many advisor software tools, it's not a flat monthly or annual subscription cost, but rather is usage-based as firms consume tokens to interact with their data across so many different systems) and firms will want to see a meaningful return from its use (and might monitor team member use closely to avoid surprisingly large token bills at the end of the month!?).

In the end, while Anthropic's new advisor plug-in offers advisors a solution to the oft-discussed problem of a (lack of) integration amongst their software tools (at least those that partnered with Anthropic on this effort) and the potential for time savings on back-office or at least client-engagement tasks that require a holistic view of and interaction with all of a client's data, translating these benefits into improved client service and/or greater capacity to serve more clients (especially in a read-only format where actions still require logging into other software) will be a key question. Nonetheless, it's notable that even Anthropic sees Claude not just as a direct-to-consumer competitor to financial advisors, but a way to empower the ability to provide greater 'human' service representing a potential defense mechanism from AI-powered tools that seek to provide consumer-facing financial advice themselves!

Advisors Say New Tech Still Isn't Buying Them Enough Client Time: Survey

(Financial Advisor)

Advances in technology have made life easier in many ways, both personally and professionally. One of the defining issues of the modern era, though, is how individuals spend any time gained from technology use. This is particularly applicable for busy financial advisors, who seemingly have no shortage of potential tasks to take on (from serving current clients to seeking new ones).

Amidst advances in AI-powered tools and other advisor technology, however, advisors appear to want more time. According to a survey of 549 financial advisors sponsored by Vanguard, 72% of advisors wished they had more time to devote to prospecting and deepening existing client relationships. According to this survey, respondents appear to be using AI to reduce time spent on existing tasks (rather than eliminate them altogether), with primary use cases including drafting emails (cited by 38%), conducting research (25%), and taking meeting notes (27%). Reasons cited for not going deeper with AI include compliance and home office hesitance (cited by 37%), a lack of time to learn new capabilities (34%), limited proficiency (31%), and concerns that AI would undercut their value (22%).

At the end of the day, though, while tech adoption can provide a certain level of convenience, advisors might also look to (human) team support, as data from Kitces Research on Advisor Wellbeing shows that team members are more reliable than relying on technology to reduce administrative work burdens for senior advisors (with the time needed to manage employees being more than offset by the amount of work that can be delegated), enhancing revenue productivity in the process!

Only 3% Of Investors Would Consider Replacing Their Advisor With An AI-Powered Alternative: Survey

(Andrew Cohen | InvestmentNews)

Financial advicers typically enjoy high client retention rates (often well above 90% annually), allowing them to build deep, long-term relationships (and benefit from a recurring revenue stream in the process). Nevertheless, given the time and hard-dollar costs of attracting and onboarding new clients (with current clients typically taking up less of an advisor's time each year), focusing on retention and the factors that go into it could be a good investment.

According to a survey by Betterment Advisor Solutions of 1,001 U.S. investors who have worked with a financial advisor for at least a year, interest in switching advisors tends to decrease with a client's age, with 53% of Gen Z investors considering a switch, compared to 39% of Millennials, 18% of Gen Xers, and 14% of Boomers (though, notably, the percentage of individuals who actually changed advisors is significantly lower, with 18% of Gen Zers, 14% of Millennials, 4% of Gen Xers, and 6% of Boomers actually doing so). An advisor's communication practices appear to be an important part of their value proposition, particularly for younger clients, with 83% of Gen Z clients communicating with their advisor at least monthly, with 74% of Millennials, 55% of Gen Xers, and 21% of Boomers reporting the same.

Also, at a time of speculation around how AI might change the advice landscape (with 75% of respondents using AI for financial tasks), only 3% of those surveyed said they would consider replacing their advisor with an AI-powered alternative and 76% said they'd still want a financial advisor even if AI could answer most of their financial questions. That said, an advisor's approach to technology could influence client retention, especially for younger clients, according to the survey, with 63% of both Gen Z and Millennial respondents saying a poor digital experience would influence their decision to switch advisors.

In sum, while advisors appear to remain in a good place with regard to client retention amidst advances in AI, these survey results suggest that even if clients might be sticking around for another year, there could be concerns lurking beneath the surface. Which suggests that better understanding what clients value (and what they want to see more of) through a client survey or other mechanism could pay off through even higher retention rates in the years ahead.

Should Charitable Clients Donate Directly From An IRA Or Donate Appreciated Securities?

(Greg Geisler and Bill Harden | Journal of Financial Planning)

Many clients of financial advisors include charitable giving among their financial goals. And while they may do so with altruistic intentions, one of the side effects of making contributions is that they often come with tax benefits for the contributor, allowing them to get at least a portion of their contribution back in the form of reduced taxes – effectively serving as a government subsidy for individual charitable donations.

However, different types of charitable contributions come with different tax treatments, which may make them more or less advantageous for an individual client. For instance, while cash charitable contributions can reduce taxable income by being taken as an itemized deduction (presuming the contributor itemizes their deductions), contributions in the form of appreciated securities from a taxable brokerage account can have a double tax benefit, by both being deductible as an itemized deduction in the amount of the fair market value of the securities contributed, as well as eliminating the tax that the contributor would have owed from selling the securities and incurring capital gains. And yet another type of contribution, a Qualified Charitable Distribution (QCD), comes in the form of contributing to a charitable organization directly from a pre-tax IRA, with the amount of the QCD being excluded from the contributor's gross income (although the IRA's owner must be at least 70 1/2 years old in order to make a QCD, and the total QCD has an annual limit of $111,000 per individual in 2026).

For charitably inclined individuals who have both appreciated securities in a taxable portfolio and pre-tax IRA funds (and are age 70 1/2 or older), the question is whether there would be greater tax benefits from contributing the appreciated securities or from making a QCD from the IRA. And while the answer can come down to numerous factors, doing the math most often results in QCD coming out on top. Because while donating appreciated securities does feature the double tax benefit of providing a charitable deduction and eliminating future capital gains income, its status as an itemized deduction means that the contribution may be only partially deductible (or not deductible at all) if the contributor isn't already itemizing their deductions. And with the standard deduction at $16,100 for single filers, $24,150 for heads of household, and $32,300 for joint filers, it's relatively rare for even moderately wealthy taxpayers to have itemized deductions exceeding those amounts before accounting for charitable contributions.

Additionally, a new rule under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) imposes a 0.5%-of-AGI reduction of itemized charitable contributions and a 2/37ths reduction of all itemized deductions for taxpayers in the top 37% tax bracket starting in 2026, reducing the value of itemized deductions and tilting the math further in favor of QCDs, which are still 100% excludable from income. And if the contributor also plans to leave assets to their heirs when they're gone, the tax code heavily favors leaving appreciated taxable securities (which receive a step-up in basis) rather than pre-tax IRAs (which must be fully distributed within 10 years for most beneficiaries, to whom they are taxable as ordinary income), making the QCD even more valuable for its ability to reduce IRA dollars today while leaving the appreciated securities in place to receive a future step-up in basis.

Ultimately, although for most people making charitable contributions is more about supporting causes and organizations they care about than it is about maximizing their own tax benefits, the reality of the tax code is that different ways of contributing will be treated in different ways for tax purposes, with some contribution types having more tax benefits than others for the contributor. For advisors, comparing the different types of contributions available to a client (and accounting for the factors in their financial life that will affect the tax treatment of those contribution types) can help them get the 'most' tax benefit out of their charitable contributions – and potentially leave them with more dollars available to contribute in the future!

The New QCD Reporting Rule Raises A Big Question For IRA Owners

(Denise Appleby | Morningstar)

When the owner of a traditional IRA who is over 70 1/2 years old wants to make a charitable contribution, they usually have the option to do so with a Qualified Charitable Distribution (QCD), which is a payment directly from the IRA to the charitable organization. QCDs can be advantageous for a host of reasons, including reducing the amount of income the owner must recognize from RMDs (since the QCD can count towards the IRA owner's current-year RMD obligation, and/or reduce the amount of future RMDs by lowering the IRA's account balance), reducing the owner's Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) which can have other beneficial effects like reducing the amount of Social Security benefits that are taxed or preventing the owner from being phased out of the temporary $6,000 deduction for individuals age 65+, and being available regardless of whether the contributor itemizes their deductions (unlike standard non-QCD charitable contributions, which are only deductible up to $1,000 for single filers and $2,000 for joint filers if the taxpayer doesn't itemize deductions).

Historically, when an IRA owner made a QCD, it was their obligation to track and report it correctly on their tax return so it would receive the proper income-excluded treatment. IRA custodians would report the distribution on Form 1099-R, but it would generally be reported as a taxable distribution alongside any other (non-QCD) distributions that were made during the year. The taxpayer would need to manually subtract the QCD from the taxable amount of their distribution and mark the QCD on their tax return – which often created a problem for taxpayers who didn't realize that the QCD wasn't automatically reported by the custodian and simply entered the gross distribution from their 1099-R into their tax return (or send the 1099-R to their tax preparer without flagging that at least part of the distribution should be marked as a QCD). As a result, many taxpayers with QCDs ended up failing to report them as such, and paying tax on income that should have been 100% excluded.

And so in 2025, the IRS announced that it would be updating Form 1099-R to include a new "Code Y" which would be used by custodians to report whether or not a distribution was intended to be a QCD. Custodians were given the option of using Code Y to report QCDs in 2025 and 2026, and will be required to use Code Y from 2027 onward.

On first glance, this would seem to be a big improvement, since QCDs will be reported directly on the forms that clients and their tax professionals use to prepare their tax returns rather than needing to be accounted for manually. However, some complications may arise from the new rules for taxpayers who have checkbooks attached to their IRAs, and make QCDs by writing a check to their intended charitable organization (which then is drawn directly from the IRA). In this case, the IRA custodian has no way to know whether a check being written is meant to be for a QCD or a 'normal' distribution, which means that for some custodians, the client will need to log into the custodian's website after the check clears to flag the distribution as a QCD – while for other custodians with no way to retroactively report a QCD, they simply won't report any distributions made via checkbook as QCDs.

As Appleby notes, however, as long as a distribution meets the statutory requirements for QCDs – i.e., they are made from pre-tax IRA dollars from an owner who is age 70 1/2 or older and contributed directly to a qualifying charitable organization – it should still qualify for QCD treatment even if it isn't reported as such by the custodian. After all, a distribution that was incorrectly reported as a QCD by the IRA custodian would in all likelihood be disallowed by the IRS, so it stands to logic that a distribution that is incorrectly not reported as a QCD by the custodian should still be able to be excluded from income. In other words, while the new Code Y reporting rule exists as an aid for taxpayers and their tax preparers to correctly report QCDs on their tax returns, Code Y itself doesn't dictate whether or not a distribution is actually a QCD.

The takeaway, then, is that although Code Y might make it easier for some taxpayers to report QCDs (and avoid having them mistakenly go unreported), it's still incumbent on the taxpayer to keep good records of the QCDs they make, and compare them against what is reported by the custodian at the end of the year – because if Form 1099-R doesn't match what happened in reality, then real distribution is what should get communicated to the tax software or tax professional.

The Roth Conversion That Wasn't Worth It

(Eric Niergarth | Retirement Roadmap Financial Planning)

For over 50 years, the government has incentivized workers to save towards retirement by allowing tax-deductible contributions to accounts like traditional IRAs and 401(k)s. Which means that many people nearing or in retirement have been able to save to such accounts over their entire careers, and therefore have accumulated significant balances (often $1 million or more) in pre-tax dollars.

And while it's certainly a positive that those individuals have been able to build up their retirement savings to that level, those large pre-tax retirement balances can also create planning challenges for retirement and beyond. First in the form of Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs), which start at age 73 and force the account owner to distribute – and pay tax on – an increasing proportion of their account balance each year (even if they don't actually need the money). And then, if there is still a balance in the account at the owner's death, it passes to the owner's heirs, who in most cases must fully distribute the account within 10 years under the SECURE Act's 10-Year Rule.

And so many advisors recommend that their clients convert much – or even all – of their pre-tax retirement accounts to Roth, particularly if the client will pay a relatively low marginal tax rate on the conversion (e.g., in early retirement). With the reasoning that, by paying tax on those dollars now at the time of the conversion, the client can avoid paying a higher rate on them later on (since RMDs or the forced rapid distribution of the account under the 10-Year Rule can bump the account owner or their heirs up into a higher tax bracket).

However, when a client has charitable intentions, that can significantly alter the calculus on whether it makes sense to convert most or all of their pre-tax dollars to Roth. That's because once an IRA owner reaches age 70 1/2, they can contribute pre-tax IRA dollars directly to charity as a Qualified Charitable Distribution (QCD), which excludes them from income entirely. What's more, QCDs can count towards the IRA owner's RMD obligations, offsetting or eliminating the income they would otherwise be forced to recognize. But if a traditional IRA owner converts the whole thing to Roth, they lose their opportunity to make QCDs, and end up paying tax on IRA dollars that could have otherwise been distributed tax-free to charity!

That said, there may still be good reasons to convert at least some of the IRA to Roth, particularly if they plan on using some of the account for their own spending and/or leaving to their heirs, for which a Roth IRA might be a better vehicle (because even though Roth IRAs are also subject to the 10-Year Rule, the forced distributions don't create any additional taxable income for the beneficiaries). But for those with charitable giving plans, it might make sense for at least a portion of the account to remain in pre-tax funds to allow for ongoing QCDs – and if the IRA owner intends to leave funds to charity after their death, the remaining pre-tax IRA funds would often make an ideal vehicle to leave them from, since unlike the owner's individual heirs, the charity won't have to pay any tax on their portion of the IRA!

Beyond Your Personal Network: How To Build A Referral System That Grows With Your Firm

(Ryann Thomas | XY Planning Network Blog)

When an advisor begins building a firm, they often begin by marketing to those in their immediate circles: former coworkers, friends, and family members. Referrals are especially helpful in the early days, when a firm is still developing their marketing strategy on how to communicate their trustworthiness to the general public, and many people are happy to help where they can.

However, after the firm has existed for a few years, advisors may find that referrals from their personal network, rather than building momentum, are instead becoming more scarce. This isn't because an advisor's personal network no longer cares – instead, it may be that they have already referred all of their immediate connections, since each person knows a finite number of people who would be a good fit for the advisory firm.

For advisors, this means that while they may be able to get a few referrals from their personal network, in the long-term, it may be more helpful to focus on centers-of-influence (COIs), such as attorneys or CPAs. COIs tend to have an ongoing inflow of new clients who may have needs that the advisor can address – and vice versa for the advisor. In the long term, this means that advisors and COIs can build a mutually beneficial relationship that ensures that clients are getting the best help possible.

In order to build this, however, advisors first need to establish and build a relationship with these COIs. Advisors can start with identifying COIs who serve their ideal clients and demonstrating to the COI that they want to work with them proactively – not 'just' wait for a referral. For example, an advisor may start by offering a client-friendly guide for the COI to share. Over time, advisors may consider tracking certain metrics, such as the number of meetings with the COI or introductions received from them.

Ultimately, the key point is that COI relationships take time to build, but if an advisor is patient, persistent, and focused on collaboration, they can eventually build a robust relationship with COIs, ensuring clients receive the best care possible!

Your Referral Strategy Is Not A Growth Strategy

(Ray Scalfani | ClientWise)

Referrals have long represented the backbone of many firms' growth strategies as a reliable way to bring new clients into the door that are a good fit. Generally speaking, many advisors separate their marketing work into two categories: client and center-of-influence (COI) referrals, and "everything else". "Everything else" may range from content creation efforts to a firm's website, and these efforts often yield new prospects more sporadically than referrals. As such, advisors may be tempted to stop everything else and 'just' rely on referrals.

The reality is, however, that a prospective client doesn't necessarily ask a friend who they should hire as an advisor, then immediately contact them. Instead, they are likely to visit the advisor's website, spend time looking at their content, and try to understand their voice and branding. The referral is the first step for many prospects, but it certainly isn't the only step in the process of selecting an advisor, especially if the prospect has received multiple recommendations.

So, for advisors, it is worth finding a way to clearly and consistently share their voice, services, and expanding expertise in a way that is accessible to prospects – even if they don't see an immediate return on investment. While advisors may choose to put guardrails around how often they update their website, blog, or social media feed, the reality is that these signs of life can make a bigger difference than many advisors give themselves credit for.  And when those prospects schedule a meeting with the advisor, it can be worth asking them to explain how they heard of the advisor in the first place.

All of this to say, brand-building work may yield greater results than advisors may realize. After all, while it can help new prospects find the advisor, it can also help referred prospects build trust – and ultimately decide to move forward!

Generating More Unsolicited Referrals That Actually Turn Into Good-Fit Clients

(Bill Cates | Nerd's Eye View)

Client referrals are a win-win scenario: the advisor gains business, the client is able to help a friend, and the new prospect gets the help they need. However, some advisors are uncomfortable with asking clients for referrals for fear of hurting a relationship, feeling awkward, or having a client decline to give a referral. As such, advisors often hope to receive client referrals 'unsolicited'.

Advisors have a few options on how to encourage clients to give 'unsolicited' referrals – by sowing the seeds in a less direct (although by no means passive) way. As a starting point, clients are more likely to provide referrals when they feel strongly about the value they gain from the advisor – and advisors may benefit (in general!) from asking clients what part of the advisor's value stands out. Alternatively, the advisor can ask the client to reflect on the transformative changes that have come about during the planner/client relationship – such as the advisor's guidance through a client's retirement, or a tax-conscious adjustment to cash flow. These questions can prompt clients to become advocates for their advisor.

Advisors may also opt for (slightly) more direct approaches. For example, advisors may gently (or humorously) encourage them not to keep the advisor a secret. Additionally, advisors may be more comfortable with educating clients about their referral process. Letting clients know who the advisor serves best or for whom the advisor's processes are best suited can lead to better-fit matches (also, having a client niche and/or ideal client persona can make it even clearer to clients who the advisor serves best).  Additionally, advisors may opt to share their process of handling referrals – which can reassure clients that their connections' information and concerns will be handled with kindness and care.

In sum, some advisors may not want to ask their clients directly for referrals – but by transparently sharing their referral process, they may be able to assuage many (unspoken) client concerns and tacitly encourage referrals, leading to more sustainable growth in the long-term!

Study Ranks Top States, Cities For Retirement

(Medora Lee | USA Today)

During their working years, many individuals are tied to a particular city or region based on needing to be close to their place of employment. Upon retirement, though, this restriction is lifted, potentially putting the entire country at their disposal. While other factors (e.g., living in close proximity to children and grandchildren) might drive this decision for some, a recent study looks at a variety of factors that could boost wellbeing in retirement to unearth some perhaps unexpected 'top' destinations for retirement.

According to WalletHub's 2026 Best and Worst States to Retire report (which ranks states based on 46 indicators falling within the broader categories of affordability, quality of life, and health care), Wyoming, Florida, South Dakota, Colorado, and Minnesota top the list of best states for retirement, with Hawaii, West Virginia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Kentucky falling at the bottom of the list. Looking at WalletHub's similar Best and Worst Places to Retire report, top cities (out of 182 studied) for retirement include three cities in Florida (Orlando, Miami, and Tampa), as well as Scottsdale, Arizona, and Casper, Wyoming, with four cities in California (Stockton, San Bernardino, Fresno, and Rancho Cucamonga) as well as Newark, New Jersey, falling at the bottom.

Notably, the top and bottom states and cities for retirement aren't uniform in their strengths across categories. For instance, while Orlando came in second out of all cities for affordability, it was 77th for quality of life (perhaps especially for those who don't like humidity!). On the other end of the spectrum, Mississippi came in 49^th out of the 50 states for quality of life and health care, but was 9^th for affordability (suggesting perhaps that a particular city in the state with stronger health care and quality of life could be attractive?). Also, many retirees might put a much heavier emphasis on one category over another (e.g., while a certain state might come with a relatively low tax burden, it might be hard to enjoy any added income if there aren't amenities to spend it on [not to mention that the tax burden that a retiree experiences in a particular state often depends on their unique financial situation]).

In the end, while rankings such as these can provide a starting point for exploring potential retirement locations, it's up to individuals to consider the factors that are most important to them when deciding where to live in retirement (perhaps assisted by a financial advisor who could open their eyes to possibilities they might not have considered?).

Living An Analog Life

(The Retired Alchemist)

For many, one of the hallmarks of modern working life is a sense of busyness. However, retirement can offer a respite from this frenetic pace of life, as there's no longer a need to get to work (or get home) at a certain time or rush from one (kid's) activity to another. While this transition can be destabilizing for some ("What am I going to do with all of this time?"), one of its benefits can be the opportunity to slow down and take a more 'analog' approach to life.

For instance, having fewer time-sensitive items on the schedule (e.g., no longer needing to arrive at the office by 9AM) opens up new avenues for transportation, which could include (depending on the distance to the destination) a leisurely bike ride or a brisk walk. Also, while work often involves multiple types of digital writing (from instant messages and emails to longer memos and papers), retirement could provide more time for putting literal pen to paper, whether in the form of a hand-written note to a friend or family member, or perhaps as a way to keep a hard copy of a brainstorming session. No longer working can also obviate the need to have one's smartphone nearby at all times (though does it really need to be close by when working anyway?), presenting fewer distractions during the day and offering more time for thinking by avoiding going into the 'default mode' of checking the phone during brief periods of distraction (e.g., waiting in line).

While 'going analog' in retirement can be an attractive option, it doesn't necessarily mean throwing out technology altogether (as tools such as Google Maps can be quite convenient!). Which suggests that retirement represents an opportunity to 'rebalance' one's digital priorities (though those at any age might benefit from this exercise as well!).

The Possible Aging Benefits Of Engaging With The Arts

(Samantha Boardman | The Wall Street Journal)

When it comes to living a longer life, much of the focus is on categories such as physical activity and nutrition (with no shortage of ways to measure these). However, certain elements of psychological and social health could be key contributors as well.

A recent study from University College London found that regular arts and cultural engagement slows biological aging (i.e., how the body's systems are functioning) at the same rate as physical exercise, with those who engaged in the arts most frequently and with the widest range of these activities (e.g., attending concerts, dancing, and visiting art galleries) coming in roughly a year younger than those who didn't. Part of this effect could be based on the stress reduction that could come from spending time viewing or participating in the arts. Also, the social nature of many arts activities could contribute to this phenomenon as well, with everything from a ballroom dancing class to a knitting club offering the potential for additional social connection.

At the end of the day, while the arts might not necessarily be 'one weird trick' that unlocks more years of health, the upside potential (from reduced stress to an improved social life) and lack of downside suggests that retirees or others with extra time on their hands could look to this category for an enjoyable (and potentially healthy) avocation.

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.