Weekend Reading For Financial Planners (March 23-24)

SEC's Texting Crackdown Rages On, With RIAs Likely Next

(Melanie Waddell | ThinkAdvisor)

In the days before the internet and cell phones, communications between financial advisors and their clients or prospects was mainly verbal. Starting in the late 1990s with the widespread adoption of email, and continuing into the 21st century as texting, social media, and messaging apps successively gained prominence, the channels that advisors used to communicate with (and often, market to) clients mirrored the ways that people connected with each other outside of work. In particular, the evolution of text messaging as a communication medium exemplifies this shift: originally people used texting primarily within an immediate circle of family and friends to whom they were willing to give out their phone number, but as businesses realized that customers were much more likely to open, read, and engage with a text message than an email, texting became used for everything from support requests to appointment confirmations to identity verification, along with a wide range of (both solicited and unfortunately sometimes unsolicited) marketing messages.

One potential hangup for advisors in adopting texting as a client communication medium is that texting – like other digital communications channels – falls under the umbrella of 'written communication' (or advertising in the case of communicating with prospects), and the regulations that obliged advisors to retain and archive such communications. Which can be a challenge, because unlike email and social media communications that are generally stored on decentralized servers and cloud networks that compliance can access and oversee directly, text messages typically go directly to an advisor's personal device, are there stored locally, and can be easily deleted – a potential nightmare for compliance departments needing to oversee the communications activities of their advisors.

Given the apparent increasing use of texting between financial advisors and their clients and prospects (and a lack of proper recording of these conversations in many cases), the SEC in recent months has cracked down on firms (particularly broker-dealers and dually registered broker-dealer/RIAs) for failure to keep proper records regarding electronic communications, including texting. These include 16 firms that agreed in February to pay more than $81 million in fines, contributing to the more than $3 billion in fines and penalties related to improper communications recordkeeping. And while the SEC appears to have so far focused its attention on some of the largest broker-dealers, some legal experts anticipate that RIAs' communication recordkeeping practices could soon come into the regulator's crosshairs.  

Ultimately, the key point is that while texting can be a convenient method of communication between advisors and their clients and prospects, adopting effective recordkeeping practices (or, for firms that do not want to use texting at all, ensuring staff are aware of and follow this prohibition) could help them avoid regulatory scrutiny in future examinations. At the same time, with a growing number of communications archiving tools available to advisors (though the subset that can archive texts in addition to emails and social media posts is smaller), firms do not necessarily have to start from scratch when it comes to engaging in text conversations in a compliant way!   

Clear Fees And Terminology, Unbiased Advice Top List Of Consumer Advisor Preferences: Survey

(Steve Randall | InvestmentNews)

Investors have a wide range of preferences when it comes to working with a financial advisor; while some might look for an advisor who can maximize their investment returns, others might prefer an advisor who can best see their full financial picture. Which can make it tricky for advisors to offer a value proposition that meets the needs of a broad range of potential clients (and advisors might come to the table with their own assumptions of what clients will prioritize!). 

With this in mind, a recent survey from research firm Hearts and Wallets sought to parse out investor preferences, as well as areas where their investors might be underperforming expectations. According to the survey, the top 5 investor preferences (which were tightly packed in terms of response rate) were clear and understandable fees, explanations that use clear and understandable terms, putting the client's interests first, their ability to make their clients money, and well-trained staff. Notably, there were some differences based on respondents' net worth; for instance, the top priority for those with less than $100,000 in investible assets was explaining things in understandable terms, while those with at least $3 million prioritized their advisor putting their interests first. In terms of gaps between investor expectations and advisor performance, the advisor's ability to make money for their clients and to be proactive during market changes topped the list (perhaps as memories of the 2022 market downturn lingered?), followed by advice being unbiased and the advisor's ability to provide knowledgeable, timely, and tactical investment ideas.

Altogether, these survey results suggest a variety of practices that could help clients attract (and retain) clients, from taking the time to understand each client's unique needs, being transparent about fees (and linking to the advisor's value proposition!), and, given the wide range of options for advice available to consumers, showing how the firm is 'different' (e.g., in its service offering and/or areas of particular expertise) to stand out in the eyes of prospects!  

Executive Panel Predicts Further M&A, Competition For Talent Among Advisory Firms

(Evan Simonoff | Financial Advisor)

While there are many paths for aspiring advisors to enter the industry (whether they are just graduating from school or are considering a career change), industry observers have predicted a coming talent shortage in the industry, which has seen rising consumer demand for advice but also has a graying workforce (with the average age of advisors being higher than 50). 

Speaking at the recent Wealth Management Convergence event, a panel of advisory firm executives suggested that this competition for talent could lead firms to increasingly look to 'poach' advisors from other firms (in part with the expectation that they bring many of their current clients with them) and to drive further Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) activity in the industry (for firms that want to acquire another's entire client base and staff at one time). While these approaches can fast-track growth (at least compared to organic growth strategies that bring on one client at a time), the panel noted that they do come with risks, both for the firms themselves (given the financial outlay involved in acquiring an advisor or firm and the potential for 'leakage' of clients and staff members following M&A deals) and the industry as a whole (as chronic advisor 'poaching' could drive up costs for firms [though this would be lucrative for advisors themselves!]).

In the end, while competition for advisor talent could drive industry consolidation in the future (and potential bidding wars for the most successful advisors?), it also highlights the potential benefits for firms of becoming an attractive destination for advisors (and to encourage current advisors to stick around), including by using compensation models that motivate employees to perform well and stay with the firm, offering benefits and perks that help the firm stand out as an employer of choice, using more equitable non-solicit agreements (which can also protect the firm's interests if an advisor does decide to leave!), and/or by creating career tracks that allow staff to know how they can advance in their careers within the firm! 

Financial, Health Planning Key Contributors To Happy Retirement: Survey

(Michael Fischer | ThinkAdvisor)

Retirement is often portrayed as a time of relaxation and enjoyment after a long career. Nonetheless, this transition can be jarring for many individuals, as they can lose the social connections, sense of purpose, and steady paycheck that are associated with employment. Which suggests that preparing for this transition (perhaps with the help of a financial advisor?) can help a pre-retiree set appropriate expectations and create a plan for when they do leave the workforce.

According to a survey sponsored by MassMutual of pre-retirees (within 15 years of retirement) and retirees (who had been retired for no more than 15 years), 67% of retirees say they are happier in retirement than they were while they were working, with only 8% feeling less happy (and the rest being about as happy as they were before). The happiest retirees tended to have prepared financially (e.g., by paying off debt in advance of retirement) and with regards to their health compared to those who reported being less happy, while also filling their free time with interactive and social activities (with less-happy retirees being much more likely to report that retirement has made them lonely). Notably, there were gaps between the expectations for retirement of pre-retirees and the actual experiences of current retirees, including in terms of activities (e.g., 79% of pre-retirees plan to travel in retirement, while 55% of retirees reported doing so currently) and financial uncertainty (44% of pre-retirees surveyed expressed this concern, while only 26% of current retirees said it currently causes them anxiety).

Overall, this survey indicates that while a majority of individuals do benefit from a boost to their happiness after retiring, the expectations of pre-retirees do not always match the reality they eventually experience. It also indicates that financial advisors can play an important role supporting clients nearing and in retirement, whether in helping them reduce their financial anxiety (by creating and stress-testing a financial plan) and/or in encouraging them to take the time to consider what they want their retirement to look like in the first place!  

"Unretirement" May Be Viable Well Into The Future, Study Says

(Emile Hallez | InvestmentNews)

For workers in physically demanding professions, the decision to retire is sometimes made involuntarily (e.g., if they become injured or otherwise unable to handle the physical toll of their job) and is often a one-time decision (as they would be unlikely to have the physical tools needed to return to their previous careers). But as office work has become more common, workers often have greater flexibility in terms of when to retire and whether to continue working in retirement (e.g., on a part-time basis). At the same time, there needs to be available positions for these individuals to fill (and interest on the part of companies to hire relatively older workers), raising the possibility that there could be a mismatch between demand for work from older Americans and available opportunities.

An analysis from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College that reviewed research on the productivity of older workers and the jobs available to them paints a generally positive picture for individuals looking to continue to work in their later years. For instance, one study found that swapping younger workers for older workers would lead to productivity gains in a majority of the industries studied (with finance, perhaps interestingly, being a negative outlier), while a separate survey indicated that very few employers viewed older workers as less productive than their younger counterparts (though while a majority of employers see older workers as equally costly to younger workers, a sizable minority view them as more costly, which could limit available opportunities). 

An additional question for workers nearing retirement age is whether their current occupation will still be in demand in the future. On the negative side, a study using projections from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on the demand for various jobs in 2030 showed that a 1-percentage-point increase in the share of older workers in an occupation today is associated with fewer jobs available in it in 2030. However, this study found that there was no statistically significant relationship between the suitability of occupations for older workers (i.e., jobs that they are capable of doing) and the availability of these jobs in the future. Together, these findings suggest that while some older workers might have a hard time finding a job in their current field in the future, there will likely be jobs available (perhaps in different fields) that fit their skills.

In sum, this research suggests that there is a good chance that individuals who decide to continue working past 'traditional' retirement age (or need to, for financial purposes) or who want to go back to work after retiring (perhaps for the sense of purpose and social benefits a job can provide) will be able to find opportunities to do so going forward. With this in mind, financial advisors can add value for clients in this position not only by showing them the (likely positive) impact of delaying retirement (or going back to work) on their financial plan, but also in helping them explore the various options to do so, whether it means working full-time or on a contract or consulting basis (which could be more attractive to employers not willing to commit to a full-time hire).  

Why High-Powered People Are Working In Their 80s

(Callum Borchers | The Wall Street Journal)

When an individual talks about delaying retirement, it is often in terms of working into their late 60s, or perhaps until age 70 to take advantage of increased Social Security benefits. But for some professionals, the desire to keep working does not decline with age, leading a number of workers to continue in their jobs well into their 70s, or even 80s. 

In fact, the numbers of workers over age 80 are growing, with roughly 650,000 Americans fitting this profile as of 2023, according to the Census Bureau, up 18% from a decade ago, with about half working full time. The most common fields for these individuals are professional, managerial, business, and financial (with perhaps a not insignificant number of financial advisors in this group?). Further, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is projecting that the workforce participation of those 75 and older will rise to 11.7% in 2030 from 8.9% in 2020 (while the participation rate for every other age group is expected to decline). While some of these individuals work because of financial need, many continue to work by choice. For some, the challenge of their job and a sense of purpose is attractive, while others enjoy the collegiality of their workplace and the mental dexterity needed to do their job well.

Ultimately, the key point is that while an advisor might assume that most clients will want to retire sometime in their 60s at the latest (and many younger clients might have this view as well!), a growing number of workers in their 80s and beyond show that this might no longer be a reliable assumption. At the same time, because many of these individuals looking to work well into their later years might still want to take some time off during their (extended) careers, offering advisors the opportunity to demonstrate how such breaks (e.g., sabbaticals or semi-retirements) could fit within their financial plan, even if 'traditional' retirement is not an expectation for them!

Spot Bitcoin ETFs Are Here. Should You Invest?

(Bryan Armour | Morningstar)

With its dramatic price increases over the past decade (coupled with sharp declines along the way), Bitcoin has caught the imagination of a wide range of investors. One of the challenges for advisors with clients interested in investing in Bitcoin, though, is how to actually invest in it, as the cryptocurrency generally cannot be held directly at the custodians financial advisors use to manage other client assets. The rollout of Bitcoin futures Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) in 2021 eased this burden, as advisors could buy and sell these ETFs just as they would other exchange-traded products. However, because these products invest in Bitcoin Futures, rather than hold the cryptocurrency directly, there is potential for deviations between the price of the ETF and the spot price of Bitcoin. And despite entreaties from a range of product providers, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for several years refused to approve a "Spot" Bitcoin ETF (which would invest directly in 'physical' spot Bitcoin, rather than in Futures products), citing the lack of a regulated exchange able to monitor Bitcoin trading to detect fraud and manipulation.

Nonetheless, after significant anticipation (and a court ruling criticizing the regulator's previous position), the SEC reversed course in January, authorizing 11 spot Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) that have now been traded for more than 2 months. But while these ETFs offer a simpler method of investing in bitcoin (compared to holding it directly) as well as with fewer price deviations (compared to the spot price) and (often) at a lower cost than futures ETFs, many investors might wonder whether a Bitcoin ETF belongs in their portfolio and, if so, which ETF to choose.

To start, investors in spot Bitcoin ETFs will likely need to be prepared to experience significantly more volatility than in their other ETFs, as Bitcoin's standard deviation of returns is nearly 4 times that of the U.S. stock market (and while much of this volatility was to the upside, Bitcoin prices have seen drawdowns of at least 45 percentage points four times in the past 5 years). In addition, unlike publicly traded companies that generate cash flows and report earnings, Bitcoin is difficult to value, suggesting that anticipating whether the current price reflects its fair value is challenging. For those investors who do decide in a spot Bitcoin ETF, comparing the fees and liquidity of different funds can help them make the right selection for their needs. For instance, 'buy and hold' investors might put more emphasis on investing in a fund with lower fees (that they might face for an extended holding period), while more active traders might focus on liquidity (including both bid-ask spreads and the depth of liquidity if they will need to trade large lots) to ensure they will be able to trade efficiently.   

In sum, while the introduction of spot Bitcoin ETFs provides investors with a new (and potentially more efficient) way to invest in the popular cryptocurrency, the decision to so requires an evaluation not only of the differences between the different ETF offerings, but, more fundamentally, of whether Bitcoin is an appropriate fit in their portfolio in the first place!

A BTC ETF Pricing Anomaly

(Dave Nadig | Echo Beach)

One of the unique features that has made ETFs so popular is the fact that, unlike a traditional mutual fund, ETFs trade throughout the day like a stock. This allows both traders and investors to try to execute their purchases and sales more effectively on an intra-day basis, unlike with a mutual fund where the trade price will be based on the Net Asset Value (NAV) of the underlying securities at the close of the market. However, since ETFs are technically traded as a "wrapper" around the underlying securities they own, ETFs can be traded at prices that differ from the net asset value of the underlying securities themselves. As a result, the actual market value purchase or sale of an ETF may be at a price premium or discount to its "intrinsic NAV" (or "intrinsic ETF value").

Fortunately, though, in practice the market price for trading most ETFs rarely deviates by much throughout the day from its underlying intraday NAV (or iNAV). The reason is that, even though technically the ETF itself and its underlying securities are 2 different investments that have different asset flows and buy/sell demand, any material deviation between the 2 creates an arbitrage opportunity; if an ETF is valued at a material premium above its NAV, an arbitrageur can short the ETF and buy all the underlying stocks of the ETF, and simply wait for the prices to converge to earn a profit. 

This arbitrage process is further expedited by the creation/redemption mechanism of ETFs, which allows authorized participants to actually buy the underlying stocks of an ETF and turn them over to the ETF provider to create a new share of the ETF (or alternatively to turn over a share of the ETF to redeem it and get the underlying stocks). Most common ETF issuers and authorized participants execute this process on an "in-kind" basis (i.e., exchanging shares of the ETF for the shares of the underlying stocks, with no cash exchanging hands), which provides them with an advantage compared to mutual funds (which have to bear the trading costs of buying or selling securities to match investor demand for the fund; this process also introduces the potential for capital gains distributions for investors). However, when the SEC approved the introduction of 11 new spot Bitcoin ETFs in January, the regulator only approved cash creations and redemptions (meaning that rather than exchange Bitcoin for ETF shares, authorized participants and ETF issuers exchange cash for ETF shares, introducing trading costs for the issuer when buying or selling Bitcoin). 

In their first couple months of trading, the spot Bitcoin ETFs have tended to trade very close to their iNAV, demonstrating the efficiency of the ETF wrapper (particularly compared to Bitcoin trusts, which often traded at significant premium or discount to the underlying price of Bitcoin). Notably, while each spot Bitcoin ETF is tracking the same benchmark asset, Nadig found that the iShares Bitcoin Trust has traded at a larger premium (about 8-10 basis points, or 0.08-0.1%) than the other ETFs. Which would normally present a potential arbitrage opportunity for authorized participants; however, in this case, because BlackRock (the issuer of the ETF) pays a fee to Coinbase to manage the Bitcoin trading process (with the trading being needed because of the cash creation/redemption process), Nadig believes authorized participants appear to be allowing the iNAV/ETF price spread run wider than the other spot Bitcoin ETFs before stepping in (to account for the trade financing costs), though he thinks this anomaly might be shortlived.

In the end, while individual investors are unlikely to be able to take advantage of this (perhaps temporary) anomaly (as they would be competing with large institutional investors and market makers), it does highlight a potential relative downside of the cash creation/redemption process compared to the more common in-kind style. Though when it comes to investing in an asset like Bitcoin, the volatility of the underlying asset itself is likely to greatly outweigh the costs created by the cash creation/redemption process when it comes to an investor's ultimate return (though interested advisors could add value for clients by comparing each issuer's trading efficiency and how they pass on related costs to investors!).     

Hot New Bitcoin Funds Are Still Waiting For Buy-In From Financial Advisors

(Vicky Ge Huang | The Wall Street Journal)

The debut of new "Spot" Bitcoin ETFs in January was met with much fanfare in the financial media, and these funds have garnered significant interest from retail investors, who have invested more than $20 billion into these funds since they started trading (perhaps spurred on further by Bitcoin's price gains since that time). However, many financial advisors have been reluctant to add these ETFs to client portfolios. 

The potential for regulatory scrutiny appears to be limiting the desire of some firms to recommend the spot Bitcoin ETFs for their clients. For instance, while the SEC approved the ETFs for trading, Chairman Gary Gensler noted in a statement that the regulator did not approve or endorse Bitcoin itself and the SEC said that it remains concerned that because Bitcoin itself is not traded on a regulated exchange, there is still elevated risk of price manipulation or other types of fraudulent activity as it pertains to Bitcoin trading. In addition to these risks, considering investment advisers' fiduciary duty, many might want to avoid regulatory scrutiny as well, given that they might have to explain why a [potentially extremely volatile] Bitcoin ETF is an appropriate addition to a certain client's portfolio.

In sum, while the introduction of spot Bitcoin ETFs presents advisors with a simpler, lower-cost way to provide clients with exposure to the cryptocurrency, the price volatility of Bitcoin itself as well as the regulatory scrutiny using them could invite appears to be dissuading many from using them. At the same time, investors with clients who express interest in investing in Bitcoin can add value by explaining the potential risks and rewards of doing so, assessing how such an investment might fit within their asset allocation and portfolio goals, and, if a decision is made to invest, choosing an ETF based on fees and/or liquidity needs!      

Realtors Reach Settlement That Will Change How Americans Buy And Sell Homes

(Laura Kusisto and Nicole Friedman | The Wall Street Journal)

For many years, the structure of how most real estate agents in the United States have been paid has been remarkably steady, with home sellers paying roughly 5%–6% of the sale price in commissions, typically split between the seller's agent and the buyer's agent (and these agents' brokerages). When creating a listing, the listing agent would include the commission available to the winning buyer's agent. Because buyers' agents were compensated in this way (receiving no direct payment from the buyers themselves), sellers were incentivized (and/or encouraged by the selling agent) to post a strong commission, lest buyer's agents be discouraged from showing the house to their clients (given that they would receive a lower commission than they would for a home offering an 'industry standard' commission). And even though this arrangement would seem to favor buyers (who receive the services of their agent without having to compensate them directly), in reality they might have ended up paying the cost of their agent's commission indirectly, as it would be baked into the purchase price (which also means buyers could not negotiate this commission). Altogether, this structure likely contributed to the United States having some of the highest real estate agent commissions in the world.

Though it persisted for years, a class of home sellers last year sued the powerful real estate industry trade group the National Association of Realtors (NAR), arguing that the way buyers' agents were paid were keeping commissions artificially high. And this month, NAR agreed to a $418 million settlement that will compensate many recent home sellers (though the amount they will receive is unclear) and, more importantly, could lead to a change in industry rules (potentially going into effect later this year) that would mean seller-paid buyers' agent commissions would no longer be included in home listings, allowing buyers to be able to negotiate compensation upfront with their agents, which could be a flat fee rather than a percentage of the purchase price (while sellers would also benefit by only paying a commission to the selling agent). At the same time, this change could come as a shock to many borrowers, who might have been used to getting their agent's services for "free" (even if they were actually paying the commission indirectly), as they might now need to come up with the cash to pay the agent themselves at closing (which could lead some buyers to eschew working with an agent altogether, given that tools like Zillow allow buyers to find homes themselves), though particularly motivated sellers could offer a credit to buyers to cover some or all of these fees. 

Ultimately, the key point is that this settlement (if approved by a federal court) could lead to a major shakeup in how real estate is bought and sold in the United States. For home sellers, this change could allow them to keep more of the equity they have built up in their home, while buyers could face more decisions (that could benefit from financial advisor support?), from deciding how much to pay for the services of a buyer's agent based on the level of service they offer (from support in the negotiation process to ensuring the closing process runs smoothly) to how to come up with this compensation (in addition to the cash they will need for a possible down payment).   

Are Homebuyers Hit Hardest By Landmark Realtor Lawsuit?

(Julian Hebron | The Basis Point)

The recent settlement between the National Association of Realtors and a number of home sellers upset about the long-standing industry commission structure is likely to have significant ramifications for home buyers, sellers, and the real estate industry itself. A key question, though, is who is most likely to 'win' and who stands to 'lose' with the pending changes.

The clearest 'winners' following the settlement are home sellers, who will now only pay a commission to their listing agent and not also to the buyer's agent. For instance, assuming a 3% buyer's agent commission on a $500,000 home sale, a seller could now leave the deal with an extra $15,000 in proceeds (though it's possible buyers, particularly in markets with less competition, might demand a lower home price given that they will now be responsible for paying their agent directly). 

The situation for buyers, though, is a bit murkier. While buyers will now have significantly more room to negotiate commissions with their agent (if they choose to use one at all), they may need to come up with cash to pay the agent (whereas the agent's commission was previously offered by the seller and theoretically baked into the price of the home the buyer would pay, allowing the buyer to finance the commission through their mortgage rather than as an upfront payment), which could be tricky for some buyers (particularly first-time buyers who are not using the proceeds from a home sale) when they will also need cash to cover their down payment and some closing costs (though regulators could decide to allow buyers to fold the agent fees into the mortgage). 

Notably, this new structure could lead to changes in how real estate brokerages operate and open the door for new types of real estate businesses. For instance, buyers' agents might offer more 'a la carte' services; for instance, buyers who are able to find a home on their own could work with an agent to negotiate the sale price and terms, and guide them through the closing process, without actually 'showing' them different homes for sale (and while the price of this service almost certainly will be less than an agent's commissions under the previous model, it could provide them with steadier income per hour worked, given that they were only guaranteed income under the previous model if their client actually bought a home [which might have required many hours spent touring houses!]).

Overall, the recent legal settlement is likely to drive down the fees paid by many home buyers and sellers and could increase the importance for real estate professionals of demonstrating the value they provide for the fees they receive. Which is not dissimilar to the evolution of the finance advice industry, which (for many firms and advisors) has transitioned from being compensated on the basis of opaque commissions to offering a variety of fee and service models to best meet different clients' needs!

How A Major Real Estate Settlement Could Impact Home Prices 

(Whizy Kim | Vox)

The real estate market is relatively tight these days, with limited available inventory for buyers (keeping prices relatively high, with elevated interest rates further adding to the costs of buying a home) as many sellers (many of whom would have to replace their current mortgage with one with a much higher rate if they were to sell their current home and buy a new one) are reluctant to list their homes. However, as the recent settlement between the National Association of Realtors and a class of home sellers could lead to a reduction in the fees sellers (and, potentially, buyers) pay, an open question is the effect that the settlement will have on home prices.

A few factors could lead home prices to decline (at least somewhat) after the settlement goes into effect (potentially later this year). For instance, once home sellers only have to pay a fee to the selling agent and not to the buying agent as well, they might be more willing to sell (given that they could take home a greater share of the purchase price), which could increase market inventory and moderate prices to some extent. Another factor is how sellers and buyers adjust their market behavior based on the new real estate agent compensation structure (which could include lower fees overall and a change to have buyers pay their agents directly); for example, buyers might demand a lower purchase price for homes given that they would have to pay their agent directly, though sellers might be more amenable to doing so (or perhaps offering buyers credit for at least a portion of the agent fees they pay) in buyer-friendly markets.

In the end, the most direct impact on the recent settlement on home prices is likely to be in how real estate agents are paid and the business models under which they operate, with the indirect impact of how home prices themselves might change being likely to play out over time (though future changes in interest rates and home inventory probably will have a greater impact on home prices and affordability!).  

---

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.