Weekend Reading For Financial Planners (July 20-21)

Brokerage Platforms Begin Boosting Cash Sweep Rates In Win For Investors, But Could Platform Fees For RIAs Be On The Horizon?

(Ian Wenik | Citywire RIA)

A custodian is one of the most crucial vendors for RIAs that manage client assets. From the core custodial services of trading and holding and keeping records of electronically owned securities, to the ancillary technology that custodians provide to help advisors run their business, a good RIA custodial relationship can help firms attract and retain clients. And despite this range of benefits, RIAs typically are able to access these services without having to pay direct platform fees, as the custodians earn money in a variety of other ways, including what is often a substantial amount of net interest income derived from the difference between the rate paid on RIA client cash held in platform or related-bank sweep programs, and the rate at which they can otherwise invest or lend the money to others (e.g., through margin loans). Which has become particularly important to the custodians as the industry has moved away from ticket charges for trades and is less and less reliant on mutual funds (and the sub-TA fees they historically generated for RIA custodians).

In practice, though, the decline of revenue streams like ticket charges and mutual fund fees has been more than offset by custodians earning more net interest income during the past couple years, often continuing to offer sub-3% (or even sub-1%) rates on cash sweep deposits while lending rates advanced alongside broader interest rates. Nevertheless, the range of options for advisors and their clients to earn higher yields on client cash (from cash management platforms designed for advisors to the custodians' own money market funds) appears to be putting pressure on the custodians to offer higher rates, with Charles Schwab (the largest RIA custodian) announcing this week that over the next few years it will resume using third parties to manage client cash sweep accounts (presumably at a higher rate that it currently offers, which would pinch its net interest income). In addition, major wirehouses Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley also announced this week that they will raise rates on investor cash sweep accounts as well, and will be implementing the changes even sooner… potentially pressuring other custodians and asset managers to raise their cash sweep rates sooner rather than later as well. Yet because of the financial impact for brokerage firms and their custodial platforms – given how lucrative cash has been – Schwab's stock price was down significantly on the news, and even LPL's share price sank this week, ostensibly due to an assumption that the former will be compelled to make a similar move in the current competitive environment.

The caveat, however, is that while the increase in cash sweep rates would appear to be good news for advisory clients, as advisors can bring better yields to the table for their clients (or at least don't have to jump through as many trading hoops to minimize client cash held in sweep accounts), these moves could shake up not only the cash management business, but also, in the long run, how RIA custodians are compensated by the RIAs that use them. To start, firms that offer RIA-custodian-alternative cash management services for financial advisors (e.g., StoneCastle, MaxMyInterest, and Flourish Cash) could find that some advisors are less tempted to move client cash from their custodian amidst higher cash sweep rates (while the custodians would seem unlikely to match the rates [currently around 5%] available on these platforms, some advisors and their clients might prefer the convenience of having their cash and investments with the same custodian for a 'small' give-up in yield?). Further, in the longer run, a reduction in custodians' net interest income resulting from paying higher cash sweep rates to clients could lead them to consider instituting fees for RIAs on their platforms to boost revenue, increasing direct costs paid by RIAs instead… albeit while also perhaps better aligning the incentives between RIAs and their custodians (by paying for services directly, rather than by custodians' revenue-generating practices such as giving custody away for 'free' by trying to nudge clients into relatively low cash sweep rates instead)?

M&A, Expanded Service Offerings, Hybrid Work In Spotlight In Latest FA RIA Survey

(Eric Rasmussen | Financial Advisor)

While RIAs themselves are often very stable businesses, benefitting from recurring revenue and high levels of client retention, the environment in which they operate is constantly changing. As reflected in the latest edition of Financial Advisor's annual RIA survey, which surveyed 428 firms (tilted toward large RIAs, with the average respondent having more than $1 billion in assets), 3 key trends in progress include elevated interest (and valuations) for RIA Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) activity, firms considering adding services to differentiate themselves, and the continued evolution of the remote work environment.

RIA M&A activity has experienced a brisk pace for the past several years (though saw a downtick in 2023 amidst a higher interest rate environment and other factors), driven in part by RIAs backed by funding from private equity firms and others (according to the survey, 17% of responding firms have outside institutional investors). Amongst respondents to the Financial Advisor survey, about 33% have been in serious M&A talks during the past 3 years, with about 38% have held exploratory merger talks suggesting that continued deal talks could lead to further growth in the number of consummated transactions in the years ahead.

As it has become more challenging for RIAs to differentiate themselves in recent years (as characteristics like offering comprehensive services or being a fiduciary have become more common), some firms appear to be looking to separate themselves by offering more services for their clients, such as tax preparation or estate planning services. According to the survey, while financial planning (99%) and asset allocation (96%) are the most common services offered by RIAs, there appears to be significant interest in more specific services as well (e.g., 22% of firms surveyed offering tax preparation). And given that adding services (and the time and/or staff needed to offer them) can pinch a firm's profitability, rather than broadening its service offering, rather than trying to offer the widest possible range of services, some firms might choose instead to offer the highest value services for its ideal target client.

Finally, the rise of the remote work era continues to play out in the RIA space. According to the survey, 87% of firms said that the pandemic changed the way they do business, most prominently by the increased use of meeting technology. And while the early days of the pandemic led many firms and their employees to work from home full-time, 72% of firms surveyed said that many of their employees are still working from home. Amongst these firms, hybrid work, where employees spend at least 1 day per week in the office, appears to be the most popular option (used by 95% of firms), with only 5% having their employees work from home on a full-time basis.

Altogether, while these trends might not impact every RIA, the broader industry environment can affect firms of all sizes in a variety of ways, from the way they market themselves to how they create an effective client service offering to the valuation they could receive if they decide to one day sell or take on an outside investor!

IRS Finalizes Guidance On RMDs From Inherited Retirement Accounts

(Ashlea Ebeling | The Wall Street Journal)

The original SECURE Act, signed into law in December 2019, changed many of the long-standing rules governing IRAs and other retirement accounts, and no single measure in the legislation had a more seismic impact on planning than the changes to the post-death distribution rules for retirement accounts. Specifically, the law stipulated that "Non-Eligible Designated Beneficiaries" (i.e., designated beneficiaries who are neither surviving spouses nor fall into a limited number of other categories) would need to empty the inherited retirement account by the end of the 10th year after the decedent's death (and would no longer be able to 'stretch' the distributions over their own life expectancy).

While many observers expected that Non-Eligible Designated Beneficiaries would not be required to take annual distributions during this 10-year period (as long as the account was fully distributed by the end of the 10th year), the IRS in February 2022 issued Proposed Regulations that would make a subset of these beneficiaries (those who inherit accounts from decedents who died on or after their Required Beginning Date [RBD]) subject to both the 10-Year Rule and annual Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs). The caveat, however, was that these were merely proposed regulations, and the IRS issued notices in 2022, 2023, and 2024 waiving any potential penalties for Non-Eligible Designated Beneficiaries in those years (and for 2021).

Finally, on Thursday, the IRS issued long-awaited final regulations confirming that Non-Eligible Designated Beneficiaries will be required to take RMDs during the 10-year period (and fully distribute the account by the end of the 10th year) starting in 2025 if the decedent died on or after their RBD (if the decedent died before their RBD, the inheritor will 'just' have to empty the account by the end of the 10th year). Further, according to the regulations, prior years will count as part of the 10-year period (e.g., for someone who inherited an account in 2021, even though RMDs were not required in 2022-2024, they will still need to empty the account by 2031). Notably, while the final details of the RMD requirements for those subject to the 10-year rule are making the most headlines, the final regulations included details on other provisions related to beneficiaries and RMDs (which will be covered in an upcoming article on the Nerd's Eye View blog, so stay tuned!).

Even though the start of required RMDs for Non-Eligible Designated Beneficiaries does not begin until 2025, many inheritors (and their advisors) might consider making distributions this year, even though they are not required. For instance, taking an individual lump-sum distribution at the end of the 10-year period could put the client in a higher tax bracket than they are today (and if clients expect their income to increase over time, they might be in a higher tax bracket then anyway!). Further, the scheduled sunset of many provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (including the more favorable tax brackets included in the law) after 2025 means that a broader range of taxpayers could face higher marginal tax rates if they wait to distribute the balance of their inherited IRA. Which means that financial advisors could help clients who are Non-Eligible Designated Beneficiaries realize significant tax savings by creating a distribution strategy based on their current and future expected tax brackets (though given potential changes in the client's income as well as potential Congressional action regarding the TCJA tax brackets, this will likely be an inexact science)!

Are There Any Mutual Funds Left That Are Better Than ETFs?

(Lewis Braham | Barron's)

One of the biggest trends in the investment industry in recent years has been explosive growth in the variety, availability, and use of exchange-traded funds (ETFs), in part because they tend to be more tax efficient, have more flexible trading, and are typically less expensive than mutual funds – which has made them a popular way to implement passive investing strategies. According to data from Morningstar, while ETFs saw $321 billion in inflows during the first 5 months of this year, investors continue to exit open-end mutual funds, which saw $93 billion in outflows, with large-cap growth, value, and blend funds seeing the most dollars leave. And amidst this heightened interest in ETFs and outflows from mutual funds, advisors might wonder whether using mutual funds still makes sense within client portfolios.

One potential use case for actively managed mutual funds is to access managers and strategies that are not available in ETF form. For instance, certain specialty mutual funds might access relatively niche areas of global markets (e.g., emerging market fixed income) that either allow for greater asset selection by the manager or are not covered by ETFs at all. In addition, niche, actively managed ETFs might be thinly traded and have significant bid-ask spreads and higher trading costs than a mutual find counterpart. Also, mutual funds must only disclose holdings every quarter while most ETFs disclose their transactions daily, giving active mutual fund managers a potential advantage by keeping their holdings secret so as to not allow front-running of their transactions (where investors buy or stocks in advance of a fund's expected purchase or sale of them, driving up costs for the fund), which could be valuable when the fund includes thinly traded securities.

Ultimately, the key point is that while ETFs continue to maintain several advantages over mutual funds, the latter could remain attractive to certain advisors interested in pursuing specialized active investment strategies for their clients and are willing to put in the time to find the managers and active funds best able to execute on them (while keeping in mind the potential cost differences between the funds, whether in terms of expense ratios or liquidity!).

Exploring The Landscape Of Active ETFs

(Bryan Armour | Morningstar)

Many advisors and investors will associate ETFs with passive investing, as many of the largest ETFs track major equity and bond indexes (e.g., the top 3 ETFs in terms of assets all track the S&P 500 index). Nevertheless, active ETFs' share of the US ETF market has grown during the past 5 years, from 2.0% in 2019 to 8.5% as of March this year. With a rising number of active funds coming to market (and a wider range of active strategies being offered), advisors might be curious as to whether one of these ETFs might add value within certain client portfolios.

Amongst active ETFs, large blend equity funds (with $90.2 billion in assets) and ultrashort bond funds ($80.03 billion) lead the way, which is perhaps not surprising given their concentration in more liquid parts of the market (as active ETFs focusing on more niche areas could find it hard to execute on their strategies if they grow too large). Following behind them, though, are the increasingly popular categories of derivative income funds (e.g., those that use covered call strategies to generate income) and options trading funds, which allow investors to gain exposure to these strategies without the (often challenging) task of efficiently buying and selling options themselves. In addition, active fixed-income ETFs have drawn in assets as well, as investors seek to gain active fixed-income exposure while gaining the tax benefits of the ETF wrapper.

In sum, the ETF universe extends beyond familiar names that track common indices (and make up the building blocks of many client portfolios!) to include active opportunities. And while many of these funds might cost more than their passive counterparts, they could offer advisors and their clients the opportunity to gain exposure to certain areas of the market and strategies that might be time-consuming or more expensive to replicate on their own?

Should Individual Investors (And Their Advisors) Care About Active ETFs?

(David Stevenson | Citywire RIA)

Active ETFs have been gaining in popularity in recent years, seeing organic fund flow growth rates of more than 30% each year since 2018 (though active ETFs still only represented 8.5% of the total U.S. ETF market as of the end of March 2024). While they have gained in popularity, a key question for advisors considering them is how to evaluate and compare them to other investment options and, if the advisor decides to use one or more of them, how to implement a portfolio strategy using active ETFs.

According to a paper from DWS Research Institute, advisors can start evaluating active ETFs by selecting a suitable benchmark (which will likely be harder to identify compared to passive ETFs that track a published index), and then evaluating both the fund's return (measured by alpha) and risk (measured by beta). Notably, using after-fee returns in these calculations will be more effective, as some active ETFs might show consistent alpha over time (without taking on excess risk) but find that it evaporates when its fees (and those of a fund tracking the benchmark) are taken into consideration. For example, given that large-cap equity is the most popular category of active ETFs, many advisors might find that these funds only differ slightly from a relevant large-cap index in their composition to the point that their excess fees above those of the benchmark wipe out any alpha. When an advisor does identify a potentially appropriate active ETF, they might consider whether to use it tactically (i.e., on a short-term basis) or strategically (i.e., on a long-term basis). While they can be used for both purposes, the DWS Research paper leans towards the latter, as it can take time for active managers to (potentially) generate alpha (though of course there could be short-term underperformance even if greater returns will be generated in the long run, which, combined with higher fees, might make such an investment harder to swallow for clients and their advisors!).

In the end, while active ETFs are growing in popularity, they require additional evaluation, not only in terms of how they compare to other available options (e.g., their passive ETF counterparts or active mutual funds), but also how they fit in a client's broader portfolio. Further, given the complexity of evaluating active ETFs, some advisors might instead choose to use (typically less expensive and easier to evaluate) passive ETFs as 'building blocks' to express an 'active' investment strategy using ETFs?

How To Name (Or Rename) Your Advisory Firm

(Jane Wollman Rusoff | ThinkAdvisor)

Whenever a financial advisor is starting a new firm – whether it is because they are 'breaking away' from a broker-dealer to the RIA channel, or are starting a new firm from scratch – there's a lot to deal with, but one seemingly simple question that tends to stump most advisors is what to name their new advisory firm. Of course, clients will still be hiring the advisor for their skills and capabilities, not solely because of the firm's name. Nonetheless, because the name represents the identity of the firm and the brand that a firm owner will want to build over time, choosing an appropriate name can send important messages to clients, prospects, and (future) employees alike.

For many firm owners, their first instinct (and perhaps simplest option) is to name the firm after themselves (perhaps adding "Financial Planning" or "Wealth Management" at the end). According to brand strategist Rob Meyerson, self-named firms can be an effective way to link the advisor's brand with their firm's, though the firm owner might want to consider whether their name is too common (in which case it won't stand out or might even already belong to another firm) or might be difficult to remember (which could make it harder to build a brand around it over time). For firm owners brainstorming other options, a key consideration (in addition to avoiding using a name that's been taken by another firm!) is to choose a name that reflects the message the owner wants to come across to clients; for example, a firm looking to serve retirees might choose words that evoke stability or security, while those serving a specific client niche might choose a name that would resonate with prospective clients within the niche.

In sum, while there is no single 'right' answer when it comes to choosing a name for a financial advisory firm, an important aspect of doing so is for the firm owner to take a step back and decide what they want the firm's overall brand to look like – whether it's tightly associated with the advisor themself, the firm's mission or values, or a concept that will attract their ideal target client!

Changing An RIA's Name To Reflect Its New Identity

(Lazetta Rainey Braxton | Wealth Management)

As an RIA grows and develops over time, a firm owner might consider whether changing the name of the firm might be appropriate. For instance, they might want a name that will be recognizable to an ideal client persona they have created, or a firm owner who initially used their name for the firm might decide to rebrand after adding a partner or additional staff (though self-named firms can be effective brands themselves, even as a business grows!).

Nevertheless, the process to actually change a firm's name can require multiple steps to complete. To start, a firm owner might brainstorm potential names that come to mind then bounce them off of friends and colleagues to see if any resonate with them (and perhaps whether any of them have unintentional hidden meanings!). Once a list is narrowed down, the firm owner can run the names through databases (e.g., the SEC Investment Adviser Public Disclosure website, FINRA Broker Check, and the U.S. Trademark and Patent Office) to confirm that the name isn't already taken (or is 'too close' to another company's name). With a name selected, the firm owner will then have to inform a variety of organizations, including the IRS, their regulator(s), and custodian, among others, in addition to their clients themselves (and potentially using the rebrand as an opportunity to initiate a marketing push to prospective clients?), which can also take time.

Ultimately, the key point is that while changing the name of a firm can allow it to better reflect its mission, values, staff, and/or clients, the time and effort needed to do so (and the lost brand equity from the firm's previous name!) suggest that a thoughtful, methodical approach to these decisions (both whether to change the name in the first place and, if so, what the new name will be) could help a firm owner make a choice that will support the business' goals for years into the future!

A Study Of 597 Logos Shows Which Kind Is Most Effective

(Jonathan Luffarelli, Mudra Mukesh, and Ammara Mahmood | Harvard Business Review)

Once a new RIA owner has decided on the name of their firm, a common next step is to create a logo for the business. Which, like the firm's name, will become an important part of the firm's branding, from piquing the interest of consumers who see it to differentiating the firm from others, to conveying what the firm is about. Nonetheless, given that there are a seemingly infinite number of options to choose from when it comes to imagining a logo, researchers have considered what types of logos tend to be the most effective.

According to a recent research paper, logos tend to fall into 2 categories: descriptive and non-descriptive. Descriptive logos include textual and/or design elements that communicate the type of product or services the company offers (e.g., the Burger King logo includes the name of the company in red sandwiched inside a hamburger bun, evoking the image of its main product). Non-descriptive logos, however, do not contain design elements that are indicative of the product or service being sold (e.g., the McDonald's golden arches do not signal the type of products the company offers). The study found that 60% of companies use a non-descriptive logo, while 40% use a descriptive one.

In order to understand which type of logo is more effective, the authors analyzed real-world logos (and the success of their related businesses) and performed a series of experiments as well. They found that descriptive logos tend to more favorably impact consumers' brand perceptions than those that are non-descriptive and are more likely to improve brand performance. Further, descriptive logos tend to make brands appear more authentic in consumers' eyes, more strongly increase consumers' willingness to buy from brands, and boost brands' net sales more. Notably, though, descriptive logos can backfire if the company's product or service is associated with sad or unpleasant things (e.g., funeral homes or exterminators), as consumers can associate the bad feeling with the company itself (though hopefully the feelings of security and empowerment that financial planning can provide mean that it doesn't fall into this category in the eyes of most consumers!).

In the end, a firm's logo – which can appear in a wide variety of locations, from its website to prospect and client materials – can play an important role in helping a firm attract interest from consumers and, if descriptive, communicate what it offers. Which, in the advisory firm context, might not necessarily mean a financial plan itself (as a giant binder might not be attractive?), but rather the intangible benefits the firm can provide its clients?

You Can Never Have Too Much Money, Happiness Researcher Finds

(Conrad Quilty-Harper | Bloomberg News)

Researchers have long sought to answer the question of whether having more money leads to greater happiness. In a frequently cited study from 2010, Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton found that while overall life evaluation was positively correlated with income as individuals' incomes exceeded $120,000, day-to-day happiness rose up to about $75,000, but failed to increase as income rose from there. This finding led to many headlines questioning the value of earning more money for the happiness an individual feels in their daily life.

But in 2021, researcher Matthew Killingsworth took a new look at this question using a different data source (that allowed for more timely and specific responses from those surveyed) and found that there is no income plateau for day-to-day happiness. Taking this research a step further, Killingsworth in a new paper explores the relationship between wealth and life satisfaction as well as whether the highest levels of income are associated with increased happiness. He finds the upward trajectory of life satisfaction continues in both cases, with no plateau occurring for those with significant wealth or income (notably, he finds that higher wealth is associated with greater happiness than higher income alone). Further, he finds that the difference in life satisfaction between high- and middle-income individuals is significantly greater than that between middle- and low-income earners, suggesting that there could actually be increasing benefits to having greater wealth.

Importantly, this research comes with a range of caveats. First, while these links are not necessarily causal, suggesting that other factors could be driving happiness in wealthier and higher-income individuals. In addition, this study looks at the question of life satisfaction and not day-to-day happiness. For instance, in his 2021 study, Killingsworth found that 'time poverty' (i.e., not having enough time to get done what an individual wants to accomplish) is a small but significantly negative mediator of the association between income and day-to-day happiness. In addition, a subsequent collaboration with Kahneman found that while individuals who are broadly happy did not see a plateau in their happiness as income rose, unhappy individual did experience this plateau (though unhappy low-income individuals saw significant happiness gains when their income increased), suggesting that if an already high-income individual is unhappy with their current course in life, earning more money might not actually make them happier.

Altogether, this research suggests that while increased income can be a contributor to happiness, even at high income levels, it is not the only factor that drives an individual's happiness. And in the advisor context, these findings largely reflect findings from Kitces Research on Advisor Wellbeing that while income does show some ability to influence wellbeing, it's explanatory power might be related to its relationship to other key drivers (including autonomy and years of experience), suggesting it might not be the primary factor contributing to advisors' happiness.

The Anonymous And Very Happy $500 Million Man

(Noah Kagan)

While many of the wealthiest Americans have a very public presence, from famous company founders to flashy heirs of the ultra-rich, others prefer to remain in the background and enjoy their wealth privately. While famous Ultra-High-Net-Worth (UHNW) individuals often make their priorities known publicly (whether by buying a yacht or by announcing that they will give most of their wealth to charity), Kagan chatted with a largely anonymous individual worth hundreds of millions of dollars (with much of that available to him in cash after selling his company) to better understand his mindset.

To start, while having significant wealth can appear glamorous, the path to get there can sometimes come with the sacrifice of other priorities. In this individual's case, he spent 15 years building his business at the cost of time spent with his family. Which helps drive his current priorities of spending time with his children and grandchildren. In addition, rather than seeking external validation, this individual is using his money (managed by a dedicated advisor) to achieve internal goals and interests, including giving most of it away during his and his wife's lifetimes (and racing cars). Altogether, he found that while great wealth opens new opportunities (whether it's private jet travel or maintaining multiple houses), it's still up to him to find happiness and meaning in his life.

Ultimately, the key point is that while UHNW individuals have significantly more assets to manage and require different types of services (e.g., advanced estate planning services and, at upper income levels, those provided by administrative family office services, such as support with home construction), they face many of the same life planning issues as do other clients, suggesting that starting out by exploring a (prospective) client's goals, relationships, and values can not only help an advisor craft a more appropriate financial plan, but also help their client make the most of their wealth (regardless of their overall wealth)!

The Global Loss Of The U-shaped Curve Of Happiness

(David Blanchflower and Alex Bryson | After Babel)

Previous research studies have identified a U-shaped curve of happiness, where individuals' wellbeing (on average) tends to be higher early in life (perhaps as they have fewer cares during their school and early adult years) and late in life (as they enjoy retirement and look back on a life well-lived), with those in middle age experiencing relatively lower wellbeing (possibly due to stress resulting from balancing work responsibilities with taking care of both children and aging parents).

However, the authors find that the previous wellbeing 'highs' in early adulthood have dissipated and that mental health strain amongst this group (and young women in particular) has increased during the past decade, creating a happiness curve that is relatively upward-sloping rather than U-shaped. For instance, the percentage of American young adults who reported feeling 'despair' (defined here as those who indicated that out of the past 30 days, all 30 were bad mental health days) has risen since 1993, with a sharper increase seen since 2015 for women and 2017 for men. Since 2015, the share of women under 25 reporting despair rose from just over 5% to more than 10% (the percentage of women over 25 feeling despair had a smaller increase, from about 7% to 7.5%), while men under 25 saw an increase from about 4% to just under 7.5% (with the share of older men staying roughly steady around 5% during this period, though this percentage previously rose between 1993 and 2011). Notably, the oldest Americans continue to show the lowest rates of poor mental health, with fewer than 5% of those over age 70 experiencing despair.

Similarly, the previously seen U-shaped curve of life satisfaction appears to have disappeared recently as well. For example, for the period between 2005 and 2018, there were local highs at age 18, 30, and 70, with a trough around age 50, but in 2022, the data show an upward trend due to a decline in life satisfaction amongst younger Americans (from almost 3.4 to approximately 3.15 on a 4-point scale for 18-year-olds), with life satisfaction increasing over time (to nearly 3.5 for those beyond age 65). Notably, the researchers found similar findings in countries around the world, with ill-being declining with age.

In sum, these data points suggest that some younger Americans today might not be experiencing the relatively greater levels of happiness (and lower levels of despair) seen in previous generations. And while there is significant debate surrounding the root cause(s) of these apparent findings, they suggest that older adults might not take for granted that their children and grandchildren will have the positive teenage and young adult years that they might have experienced themselves?

---

We hope you enjoyed the reading! Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts, or make a suggestion of any articles you think we should highlight in 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 "Wealth Management Today" blog.