When a client sadly passes away, financial advisors often leap into action. In part it’s simply to provide good service and support to a grieving family. In many cases, there’s also a business interest to engage with next generation heirs and establish or deepen a relationship, in the hopes of continuing to serve the family after the death of the original client. In either case, “proactivity” becomes the guiding principle of engagement. Except the reality is that when it comes to estate planning scenarios, there is actually such thing as being too proactive… because the actions of settling an estate and distributing assets can unwittingly negate the ability of beneficiaries to subsequently engage in disclaimer planning.

In this guest post, David Haughton, an attorney and VP of Engagement for Hargrove MSO, explores the benefits of disclaimer planning, and how the unique requirements for executing a qualified disclaimer, including and especially that the beneficiary not have “accepted” the inheritance, can run directly contrary to traditional proactive service for estate heirs.

The basic principle of executing a disclaimer is fairly straightforward: a beneficiary can choose to not accept an inheritance, and by doing so in a qualified manner, is simply deemed as never having inherited the asset in the first place, allowing it to flow instead to the next (i.e., contingent) beneficiary. For those facing estate tax exposure, this is much more appealing than simply receiving the inheritance and re-gifting it to another beneficiary (and using a portion of their own lifetime gift and estate tax exemption). And even for the wide swath of those without Federal estate tax exposure, disclaimer planning can still be relevant in scenarios from shifting a pre-tax IRA to someone with a more favorable tax rate to draw post-death Required Minimum Distributions, to shifting after-tax assets to someone who may receive better step-up in basis treatment in the future.

However, executing a qualified disclaimer has a series of four very concrete requirements: 1) made in writing; 2) completed within 9 months of the inheritance; 3) done before accepting the inheritance; and 4) results in property passing without direction by the disclaimant. The fourth requirement in particular is important to recognize, because it means the beneficiary cannot actually dictate where the property will go, only that they will not receive it… and the original governing documents (e.g., the Will, or trust, or account agreement, or beneficiary designation) instead determines who will receive instead.

The bigger caveat, though, is the 3^rd requirement of a qualified disclaimer: that the property not be accepted. Which is important, because distributing assets to a beneficiary, paying income to them, or even the advisor taking action to sell, liquidate, or otherwise manage the assets at the direction of the beneficiary, can be deemed acceptance. Such that while the standard rules for disclaimers allow up to 9 months for completion, acceptance will immediately end the time window, which means advisors proactively trying to engage next-generation heirs can unwittingly terminate the planning opportunity.

As a result, a best practice for helping heirs to settle an estate is to understand and identify as early as possible whether disclaimer planning might possibly be relevant, if only to avoid eliminating its potential altogether with “early” settlement of the estate. Fortunately, this doesn’t mean no actions can be taken in the account – the advisor can still manage at direction of a fiduciary (e.g., a trustee) supervising the assets. And often advisors have the best holistic perspective to understand whether a disclaimer is a relevant planning opportunity (or not).

Ultimately, the key point is simply to recognize that because “acceptance” can terminate the window for executing a qualified disclaimer, advisors otherwise engaging in proactive service to help a grieving family or to establish a relationship with next generation heirs must be cautious not to accidentally end a disclaimer planning opportunity. Especially recognizing that disclaimers aren’t just a matter of Federal estate tax planning (for only a small subset of ultra-high-net-worth clients with estate tax exposure); income tax consequences, from IRA distributions to step-up in basis opportunities, mean disclaimer planning has potential for a wide range of client circumstances. As long as the window remains open long enough to determine whether it’s right for any particular heir!

And if you want to go deeper on this topic, hear directly from the author on the Financial Advisor Technician podcast.

Read More...

My guest on today's podcast is Nick Ibello. Nick is the founder of Ibello Wealth Management, an IAR of LPL Financial's corporate RIA, based in Columbia, Maryland but operating virtually, that oversees $160 million in assets under management for 100 client households.

What's unique about Nick, though, is how he has made a conscious decision to limit the size of his business to offer greater depth of service for his clients while meeting his personal lifestyle goals.

In this episode, we talk in-depth about how Nick got his start in the industry by cold-calling and putting in ‘reps' that helped him refine his communication style, how Nick transitioned from this focus on ‘activity' to pursuing greater depth for his ideal target clients, and how Nick decided that working with approximately 100 clients was the right fit for his personal and professional goals.

We also talk about how Nick manages 100 client relationships (and onboards two new clients annually) between himself and a paraplanner, how Nick implements a “surge” meeting schedule that includes two ten-week meeting seasons each year (allowing him to focus on his clients' end-of-year tax planning opportunities in the fall and post-filing planning needs in the spring), and how Nick uses the time between his surge seasons to work ‘on' his business, onboard new clients, and to have time to go deep for clients who have major issues emerge between regularly scheduled meetings.

And be certain to listen to the end, where Nick shares how he gives prospects three options at the end of his discovery meeting process (though almost all of them choose to work with him), how Nick schedules prospects' and clients' next meetings at the end of the current meeting (allowing him to know what's coming down the line weeks or months in advance), and how Nick has found success in part by being willing endure a professional grind in his 20s to be able to achieve a more flexible lifestyle in his 30s and beyond.

So, whether you're interested in learning about building a practice that meets your lifestyle goals, implementing a meeting cadence that meets your personal and professional needs, or how to consider work priorities during different seasons of life, then we hope you enjoy this episode of the Financial Advisor Success podcast, with Nick Ibello.

Read More...

Welcome to the November 2026 issue of the Latest News in Financial #AdvisorTech – where we look at the big news, announcements, and underlying trends and developments that are emerging in the world of technology solutions for financial advisors!

This month's edition kicks off with the news that Orion has announced a new fee on technology vendors that access Orion data via integration, forcing providers to decide whether to eat the fee, raise their own prices, or stop integrating with Orion – and raising the question of whether other platforms will start charging their own data access fees and potentially trigger a wave of rising technology costs that could spread to advisors (and ultimately their clients).

From there, the latest highlights also feature a number of other interesting advisor technology announcements, including:

• Nevis has raised $70M in Series B funding as it builds its advisor AI 'operating system' – but despite the appeal of one system that can unite all of an advisor's disparate software tools (and solve the so-called 'swivel chair' problem), the fact that so many other providers are competing to be the hub of the advisor's tech stack (including ones like Jump and Hazel that already have a substantial head start in adoption) means that it could be hard for tools like Nevis to scale in a way that makes the math work for its investors
• BNY/Pershing has wound down its Wove platform, which was launched as a multi-custodial all-in-one wealth management platform three years ago – highlighting that while even though it might make business sense for an RIA custodian to build its own technology offering (as evidenced by the rise of Altruist in recent years), Wove might have suffered from trying to be everything to everyone instead of focusing on a narrow range of solutions for a broader set of advisors
• Milemarker has added a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server to its data warehousing solution, allowing advisory firms to plug their AI assistant of choice into their centralized firm data – but as AI tools increasingly become the main way that advisory firms interact with their firm data, and become integrated with a larger variety of advisor-specific software, it's worth wondering how much a centralized data warehouse is even needed (when off-the-shelf AI tools can just make the data connections to the advisor's other software themselves)?

Read the analysis about these announcements in this month's column, and a discussion of more trends in advisor technology, including:

• The state of Missouri has approved a rule declaring the practice of using credential-sharing technology (such as Pontera) to view and make trades in a client's held-away account to be an unethical business practice, further adding to the divided state regulatory landscape and highlighting the need for 401(k) plan providers themselves to provide more secure means of accessing client data
• The SEC announced its 2027 examination priorities, which notably include assessments of RIAs' ability to prepare for and respond to AI-driven deepfakes and phishing threats – suggesting that, as AI makes it easier for fraudsters to imitate a client's voice or even video image, advisory firms will need to step up their efforts to incorporate more secure multi-factor authentication (MFA) in their workflows for client money movement requests

And be certain to read to the end, where we have provided an update to our popular "Financial AdvisorTech Solutions Map" (and also added the changes to our AdvisorTech Directory) as well!

*To submit a request for inclusion or updates on the Financial Advisor FinTech Solutions Map and AdvisorTech Directory, please share information on the solution at the AdvisorTech Map submission form.

Read More...

Enjoy the current installment of "Weekend Reading For Financial Planners" – this week's edition kicks off with the news that a recent survey by Charles Schwab of RIAs on its platform finds that many firms are looking beyond AUM to track their growth (at a time when market-driven AUM growth can hide possible organic growth challenges), with new client headcount, client referrals, and AUM-per-household emerging as popular data points. In addition, at a time when offering comprehensive planning services has become more common amongst advisory firms, RIAs appear to be leaning into providing exceptional client service and building a trusted reputation to differentiate themselves.

Also in industry news this week:

• Schwab executives this week offered updates on a variety of hot-button issues for RIAs on its platform, addressing its cash sweep program, lending offerings for clients, and advisor suspicions that the custodian is also acting as a competitor in part through its newly opened wealth management offices
• The SEC has released its 2027 examination priorities, which include a focus on Artificial Intelligence, both in terms of firms' use of AI-powered tools and AI-enabled cyberthreats to client data and assets

From there, we have several articles on investment planning:

• How the relative strength of large-cap U.S. stocks in recent years has led some investors to fall into a 'coretex', (perhaps unintentionally) overweighting this market segment
• A research study examines the potential benefits of diversification not only amongst different investment factors, but also in the measures used to select investments within them
• How a "tolerance band" approach to rebalancing could reduce the number of rebalancing trades needed while keeping a portfolio largely aligned with its target asset allocation

We also have a number of articles on education planning:

• A rundown of several recent changes to the student loan environment that went into effect this year, including annual and aggregate loan limits and changes to repayment programs
• How financial advisors can help clients plan for the tax implications of student loan forgiveness
• Why some students (and their parents) are turning to the private student loan market amidst new restrictions in federal student loan lending (and how advisors can help clients assess their options)

We wrap up with three final articles, all about travel:

• A look into the cat-and-mouse game between credit card issuers and those looking to maximize their points and miles earnings
• While travel is often a stated goal of those entering retirement, looking deeper into the 'why' behind this ambition could lead to a more fulfilling experience
• How travelers can ease their way through airports using VIP packages that offer a smoother ride (for a price)

Enjoy the 'light' reading!

Read More...

The value of an advisor’s time is one of the core questions of building an advisory firm. After all, this value not only affects business decisions, but advisors need to be able to explain (and justify) the value of their advice to new clients. Over time, many advisors find ways to talk clients through their concerns – but the fee conversation is nonetheless a common part of prospecting discussions. However, some clients pose the opposite problem: they enter into the advisory relationship willing to pay an advisor considerably more for their time than other clients. While positive on its face, this can also pose a series of operational (and existential!) questions to the advisor – ‘should’ they let that client pay more? If so, how much more?

In this 202nd episode of Kitces & Carl, Michael Kitces and client communication expert Carl Richards discuss clients who are willing to pay over the advisor’s standard pay grade… and what that could mean for the value of the advisor’s advice. On one hand, this could be a signal that the advisor has undervalued their service – or that the value of their advice has shifted as their expertise has grown! On the other hand, some advisors may feel that the client is ‘overpaying’ – and that if their firm is already profitable, there ought to be a maximum that clients pay for their services. If the firm is viable and the advisor is content with their lifestyle, is there a ‘point’ in earning more?

While some advisors pose this as a question of ethics, it is perhaps more useful to consider what the advisor wants to build. Some advisors are extremely income-motivated, or aspire to grow their team and firm. In that case, the goal is likely to make this prospect the first of many higher-paying clients – as the line of logic goes, one higher-paying client can likely give referrals to others like them. Or the additional cashflow may give the advisor an opportunity to scale the firm, evenif the long-term goal isn’t to find more clients at that level of affluence.

On the other hand, other advisors may not strive for the complexity that comes with maximizing growth – after all, being paid more often means providing more, in one way or another. In that instance, the advisor may opt to institute a fee maximum or similar guardrails to curtail how much any individual client pays. One benefit of this approach is that it can prevent a ‘hierarchy’ of clients, presuming everyone is paying relatively similar fees, which means the the advisor ‘just’ has to refine their advisory firm offerings around a very set fee schedule.

Ultimately, the key point is that while advisors can create different frameworks to prevent or promote fee differentiation amongst clients, there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer as to how to handle a high-paying client. The end challenge for advisors is to know what they want to build!

Read More...

Given some of the frictions and costs involved with implementation, many sophisticated tax planning strategies have historically been the purview of only the wealthiest investors. However, thanks to technological and other advances, in recent years certain tax-aware investment strategies have become available to a wider range of investors. At the same time, innovation in investment strategies and products can sometimes push the boundaries of what the IRS finds acceptable, potentially exposing investors who use them to greater scrutiny. 

Amidst this backdrop, the IRS has issued formal guidance regarding certain tax-aware investment strategies that have been growing in popularity. Its more definitive statement, Revenue Ruling 2026-20, addresses a variation of the Section 351 ETF conversion (which investors can use to diversify concentrated positions while deferring capital gains) in which securities that don't fit the ETF's investment thesis are exchanged with an Authorized Participant, as part of the same plan, for securities that do. In this case, the IRS concluded that the ETF should not be respected as an independent intermediary, and that the investor should be treated as having made a taxable exchange. The agency did not, however, restrict Section 351 ETF conversions more broadly, leaving a good deal of gray area between what is clearly permitted and what is not.

 The IRS also recently issued Notice 2026-62, which identifies transactions that concern the agency. The Notice describes additional guidance or enforcement actions the government may consider pending a public comment period (including guidance that could apply retroactively), making it less definitive than the Revenue Ruling, though still helpful to understand the types of transactions and products that are on the IRS' radar. Strategies identified in the notice include a partnership/exchange-fund variation of the Section 351 transaction, box-spread ETFs (which generate interest-like income that turns into a deferred capital gain), ETFs that defer income by rotating between underlying ETFs with different dividend record dates, ETFs that seek to skirt the registered investment company qualifying-income rules, and certain strategies designed to exploit differences in the character of economically offsetting gains and losses.

With these (and other) IRS statements in mind, financial advisors considering a particular tax-aware investment strategy for one or more clients might first determine whether there would still be a legitimate investment reason for the client to own the strategy if the projected tax benefit were materially smaller than expected (i.e., it has an attractive risk/return profile even in the absence of advertised tax benefits).

From there, the process looks much like the one advisors already use for investment risk: estimating the net benefit if the strategy works (after fees, financing, and professional costs, and recognizing that some of the 'savings' may simply be deferral), the total cost if it doesn't (including interest, penalties, and professional fees), and the strength of the tax position itself (including input from an independent tax professional and whether any outside legal opinion has been updated for the new guidance).

Further, an advisor might work with a client to assess their personal "tax risk tolerance" (i.e., their willingness to pursue a tax-aware investment strategy that might later bring them under IRS scrutiny), alongside their capacity for that risk (e.g., whether they have sufficient liquidity if the strategy is deemed impermissible and they are faced with a large tax bill and, potentially, penalties). While some clients might see the upside potential of a strategy as being worth a potential audit or even a case in Tax Court (including the accounting and legal fees they could face), others might not be willing to take that risk.

Ultimately, the key point is that while the IRS isn't 'declaring war' on tax-aware investment strategies, financial advisors and their clients can likely expect more guidance, and more scrutiny, on certain strategies that appear to push the limits on permissibility. Which suggests that financial advisors can support their clients by helping them understand their personal tax risk tolerance – and recommending particular tax-aware investment strategies (or not) accordingly!

And if you want to go deeper on this topic, hear directly from the author on the Financial Advisor Technician podcast.

Read More...

My guest on today's podcast is Neela Hummel. Neela is the CEO of Abacus Wealth Partners, an RIA based in Santa Monica, California, that oversees $3.4 billion in assets under management for 1,550 client households.

What's unique about Neela, though, is how she rose through the ranks of Abacus from starting as an unpaid intern to becoming CEO, giving her a valuable perspective on what it takes to build a successful career within the same firm.

In this episode, we talk in-depth about how Neela was initially attracted to the financial planning industry based on its ability to make a meaningful difference in clients' lives (even though she didn't have an academic background in financial planning), how Neela started gaining client-facing traction within her firm by offering value to more senior advisors (for example by managing technology and taking notes during client meetings), and how Neela built the confidence to take the lead on client relationships herself at a relatively young age (in part by being responsive to client needs and leaning into her technical expertise).

We also talk about how Neela made the jump to become a leader at the firm, first by learning how to juggle client and team management with the impetus to source new clients, how Neela later became the firm's chief of advisory services (and started to help the firm's leadership team professionalize the firm and its processes), and how Neela eventually became the co-CEO at the firm (finding that this two-person leadership structure was helpful in navigating major transitions for the firm and in her personal life).

And be certain to listen to the end, where Neela shares her views on equity ownership (and how Abacus is now entirely employee-owned), how Neela organizes her schedule to focus on being in high-impact meetings at set times during the week (allowing her to prioritize what's most important and meet both her professional and lifestyle goals), and how Neela has found that a sense of curiosity has supported her throughout her career and can be a key contributor to success for newer advisors.

So, whether you're interested in learning about navigating a successful career path within a single firm, what it takes to transition to leadership roles with increasing responsibility, or leading a firm that leans into its values, then we hope you enjoy this episode of the Financial Advisor Success podcast, with Neela Hummel.

Read More...

The world of financial advisor conferences has evolved tremendously over the past 15 years. Yet while conferences were punctuated by a great pause due to COVID, the underlying shifts are driven more by how the growth of the internet is still reshaping both the ways that advisors get their education and professional development, and also how sponsors – the historical lifeblood of conferences – choose to reach advisors.

In the past, the primary conveners of advisor conferences were the membership associations, who with thousands (or tens of thousands!) of members were the largest aggregations of advisors, especially amongst independent advisors. As such membership associations were the best positioned to invite their members to a conference, charge sponsors for visibility and access to the advisors at the conference, use the dollars to host the conference and invite speakers that would drive turnover, and use the net proceeds left over to grow and advance the mission of the membership association.

More recently, though, this has substantively shifted. This is in part because conferences are no longer quite the driver of continuing education that they once were, as more and more high-quality CE providers become available online. But additionally, this is because the internet steadily undermined the print and then eventually online advertising models of industry media companies… leading them to instead go into the conference business and compete against membership associations for the sponsor dollars. While at the same time, the vendors that once paid membership associations their sponsorship dollars grew and scaled themselves to the point that many now run their own "user" conferences that rival or exceed the size of membership association events!

All of which means now there are more conferences than ever before, from more event organizers than ever before… and it's become increasingly difficult and even overwhelming for advisors to choose what to attend!

As someone who has been speaking at 50–70 in-person and virtual conferences every year for nearly 20 years myself, I've seen the good and bad of our wide range of industry events, from the industry associations to the broker-dealers and insurance companies and RIA custodians, the rise of vendor conferences and media-driven events, private company events, and more. As a result, I am often asked for my own suggestions of what, really, are the industry's 'best' conferences to attend, and back in 2012, I started to craft my own annual list of 'best-in-class' top conferences for financial advisors.

Having updated our annual conference list every year since, I'm excited now to present my newest list of "Top Financial Advisor Conferences" for the upcoming 2027 year, from events on advisor technology to marketing, practice management scaling to succession or developing next-generation talent, to the top events for those who still use conferences to up their technical game in areas like tax planning, estate planning, and retirement planning. Plus a few events that are simply great, well-rounded experiences for those who want to enjoy the conference, the destination, the sessions they attend, and their fellow attendees.

In addition, we've also updated our popular "Master Conference List" for all financial advisor conferences we could find for 2027, both for advisors looking for a wider range of events to attend (if you want to delve deeper into a particular topical area) and for vendors looking for more conferences to exhibit at! (And as more 2027 conferences are announced in the coming months, we'll continue to update the Master Conference List well into the coming year!).

So I hope you'll find this year's 2027 top conferences list (and our updated Master Conference List) to be helpful as a guide in planning your own conference budget and schedule for next year, and be certain to take advantage of the special discount codes that several conferences have offered to all of you as Nerd's Eye View readers!

Read More...

Also in industry news this week: 

• The IRS recently finalized rules for the car loan interest deduction introduced in the One Big Beautiful Bill act, offering financial advisors the opportunity to add value by helping clients determine whether they might qualify for it and, at a broader level, whether financing a new car purchase is the best course of action given their personal circumstances 

• A survey indicates that individuals with a financial advisor are much more likely to have a plan in place to address a potential long-term care need and shows how the impact of care responsibilities (both in terms of time and money) can frequently fall on loved ones 

From there, we have several articles on tax planning: 

• Why ‘filling up’ a client’s current tax bracket isn’t always an optimal strategy when it comes to making (partial) Roth conversions 

• The circumstances when a client might want to incur more taxes this year in return for a lower tax bill down the line (and the hurdles advisors might have to overcome to implement a related planning strategy) 

• An analysis of the expected after-tax accumulation of traditional versus Roth retirement account contributions and how it relates to the variance of the ultimate results  

We also have a number of articles on practice management: 

• A five-step framework for handling fee objections, from acknowledging the prospect’s concerns to giving them room to make a decision 

• A one-sentence response advisors could use when prospects hesitate about an advisor’s fee that avoids the appearance of defensiveness and allows for a deeper investigation of the prospect’s underlying concerns 

• How financial advisors can communicate (the necessity of) fee increases with a value-centric, client-based approach 

We wrap up with three final articles, all about the benefits of experimentation: 

• How financial advisors can help clients prepare for retirement and other goals by encouraging experiments that allow them to see what the future might be like without going all in 

• How engaging in experiments could be more effective (and productive) compared to setting major (challenging) goals in many parts of life, from careers to health and relationships 

• Why failure can be a competitive advantage for firms that are willing to experiment, be open to feedback, and apply the lessons of ‘failed’ initiatives 

Enjoy the ‘light’ reading! 

Read More...

When clients search for a new advisor, they often look for signals of competence and trust. In the world of AI-powered tools and search engines, clients can easily find nearly-endless options for advisors, but determining whom to trust – even enough to schedule an introductory call – is a tall order. Many clients opt to ask friends for a recommendation, but nearly everyone looks to the general public as well – that is to say, to client reviews. And since the 'modernized' SEC Marketing Rule became effective in 2021, advisors can now use testimonials from current clients and other related parties, provided that the advisor gives appropriate disclosures. That said, implementing reviews as an advisory firm can add an extra layer of complexity and compliance work, leaving many advisors to wonder if the proverbial 'juice' is worth the squeeze.

In this article, Whit Lanier, co-founder of Amplify Reviews (an RIA review-verification and publishing platform), and Kent Keister, founder of Reliant Compliance (an RIA compliance firm), discuss how advisors can implement client reviews in a sustainable, balanced manner. According to Amplify Reviews' own 2026 State of Testimonial Marketing report, 79% of top RIAs still aren't actively using testimonials or online reviews in their marketing, in part due to compliance complications or concerns. Yet at the same time, prospective clients increasingly rely on online reviews and other tools to evaluate their providers (and Google gives an outright search boost to highly-rated businesses). The challenge, then, is finding an approach that maximizes the marketing benefits of online reviews while remaining compliant with SEC requirements.

For most firms, receiving reviews is generally not a compliance issue; the greater challenge is soliciting reviews while remaining in compliance. For example, advisors must have a reasonable basis to demonstrate that third-party rating systems allow favorable and unfavorable feedback equally, without being designed to produce a predetermined result. An advisory firm must ask all clients for feedback, not just satisfied ones, and document the process by which they opted to ask for these reviews.

Of course, advisors are also balancing clients' own preferences and practicality. For example, while positive Google Reviews can strengthen a firm's visibility, many clients may not be comfortable publicly admitting that they have a financial advisor (or an advisor with a high minimum, for example) – and it isn't possible to post an anonymous Google review. As such, firm owners may solicit anonymous testimonials through third-party software, which can be displayed on their site. Through this approach, advisors sacrifice some Google search return visibility, but may gain an increased number of client reviews.

In short, relying exclusively on either Google or a third-party channel inevitably means sacrificing some combination of marketing reach, client participation, and compliance flexibility. As such, advisors may benefit from a two-pronged strategy that combines both Google Reviews and anonymous testimonials, allowing advisors to yield the benefits of both channels while maintaining flexibility to accommodate client preferences. Each firm's exact approach will vary based on client temperament as well as the team's own capacity. For example, one firm may send clients a single review request offering a choice between leaving a Google review and submitting a testimonial for the firm's website. A different firm can first collect website testimonials, then invite all respondents to post on Google (regardless of their rating). A third firm may opt to conduct several campaigns several months apart. While the exact approach may vary, the key is to have a transparent, consistent, and unbiased process.

Ultimately, the key point is that building a strong online reputation doesn't require advisors to choose between maximizing marketing impact and maintaining compliance comfort, especially for advisors that can combine the broad visibility of Google reviews with more anonymized third-party options. All of this can contribute to helping prospective clients gain a fuller picture of whom to hire – and increase their trust in the advisor, all before they even reach out!

And if you want to go deeper on this topic, hear directly from the author on the Financial Advisor Technician podcast.

Read More...

My guest on today's podcast is Chris Smith. Chris is the founder of PSBLTY, a brand strategy, design, and implementation firm that works with financial advisors, teams, and firms.

What's unique about Chris, though, is how he works with advisors to create a more effective discovery process that closes more clients and helps advisors move upmarket.

In this episode, we talk in-depth about how Chris views leadership as a key element of the discovery process (as prospects want to know where the process is heading and how the advisor will guide them), why Chris believes the key to the initial meeting with a client is for the advisor to spend the vast majority of the time listening to the client (and then synthesizing and reflecting their comments back to them), and how Chris finds that closing the first meeting with an “assertive assumption”, rather than asking if the prospect has any questions, increases the chances the prospect will schedule a second meeting.

We also talk about how Chris views the second meeting with a prospect as an opportunity for the advisor to share planning insights and a strategy to move forward (spending most of the time during the meeting speaking themselves, unlike during the initial meeting), why Chris warns against going too deep in terms of analysis at this point to avoid creating confusion in the prospect’s mind, and the scripts Chris uses at the end of this second meeting to invite the prospect to become a client.

And be certain to listen to the end, where Chris shares how he got his start in the financial advice industry after working in commercial real estate (and finding that many of the same prospect communication techniques transfer over well), how Chris has identified a major difference between growing and scaling his own business (along with the importance of tracking key business metrics), and how Chris finds that a business can only grow as fast as its founder is willing to develop their leadership skills.

So, whether you’re interested in learning about how to structure that second meeting around planning insights and strategy without overwhelming the prospect, the scripts Chris uses to invite prospects to become clients, and how his background in commercial real estate shaped his approach to prospect communication, then we hope you enjoy this episode of the Financial Advisor Success podcast, with Chris Smith.

Read More...