Mindy: Hello, hello, hello and welcome to the BiggerPockets Money Podcast. My name is Mindy Jensen and with me as always is my not a financial advisor co-host, Scott Trench.
Scott: Hey Mindy, great to be here with our free only podcast here at BiggerPockets Money. Guess you get what you pay for with BiggerPockets Money here. Thank you so much for listening and joining us today. I’m super excited about today’s episode. A few weeks ago, I put out a this post to my LinkedIn feed. I said, hello, Mindy and I are looking for two financial planners to justify their compensation models in the BiggerPockets Money podcast. We feel very strongly that flat fee or advice only, which means no AUM and no commissions, is the best way to align interests between a CFP and their clients, but we’d like to hear the case argued by a CFP who charges an AUM fee and about why their compensation model is not the conflict of interest we feel it to be. And boy, did I get a response. I think I had a couple hundred comments, some from impassioned defenders of both the AUM model and of fee-based compensation, which includes commissions for sales of insurance and other financial products. We are delighted and honored that in response to that post, Ryan Sterling, the CEO of NerdWallet Wealth Partners reached out to defend the AUM model. NerdWallet Wealth Partners is a fee only registered investment advisory that monetizes financial planning and investment advisory into a management via an AUM model. Ryan is going to defend the AUM model today and address our challenges.
Before we get going, I want to recognize Ryan’s courage in coming on today’s show. Ryan is coming to the church to preach atheism here at BiggerPockets Money. BiggerPockets Money listeners are overwhelmingly predisposed to bias towards advice only or flat fee advisory for financial planning and are inherently skeptical of the AUM model, and they’re totally against commission or fee-based models overwhelmingly here at BiggerPockets Money. Ryan enters a little bit of unfriendly territory today, and Mindy and I, though we share our bias against AUM models, are going to treat him with respect and dignity, and we ask that everybody who comments on this video does the same. Ryan is doing great work and we hope to be persuaded. Please note that NerdWallet Wealth Partners does not earn income from the sale of investment products, including the sale of permanent life insurance, which we have an even stronger bias against here at BiggerPockets Money than the bias against AUM fees.
Mindy: Before we jump in, Scott and I want to say that we do not have any sort of affiliation with NerdWallet Wealth Partners. We are just inviting Ryan on because he responded to Scott’s post and had really great points to make. So, without further ado, let’s bring in Ryan.
Scott: Ryan, thank you so much for coming on today’s show and while we know you’re coming in with a bias for the AUM model, I hope that we can have a respectful and uh a wonderful debate and dialogue about this topic. Thanks so much.
Guest: Yeah, thank you for having me. And I will say, I hope it’s not too unfriendly because I am a fan of the show and a huge advocate for financial independence.
Scott: We’ve had staged some conversations to this effect over the years and there’s a blood in the water uh uh dynamic going in and it never actually materializes.
Guest: There there doesn’t have to be. underneath all that, there’s, yeah, most people are very reasonable about all this stuff. So,
Scott: I I would love to kick this off by uh defining what we’re talking about today. What what is financial planning at its core? What what does that term mean to you? What is what is the what is that offering?
Guest: First, I mean, let me go back to what I see our core offering and our deliverable to our clients. And we really break our engagement into three different categories: Financial planning, coaching, and investing. So, let me start with the planning piece. So the way we describe planning is it’s basically doing a diagnostic of where you currently are and building that road map from where you are to where you need to get to. I oftentimes use the analogy that, you know, imagine you’re on a road trip from New York to Los Angeles, you could say, you know what? Like I don’t need ways. I don’t need a map. as long as I go west, I’m eventually going to hit California. And you’re right about that. If you go on a road trip from New York to California, like all you need to do is go west. Now, it’s not going to be the most efficient way there. You’re going to be taking side roads, you’re going to hit the Pacific Ocean and then have to go south. So it’s going to take you a long time to get there. And I use that analogy because that’s what a lot of people are doing before having a financial plan is that so long as I’m saving more than I’m spending and I’m putting money in my 401K that I’m eventually going to build wealth. And they’re not totally wrong with that, but it’s not going to be efficient. So the financial plan is that ways where we’re saying, hey, we want to go from New York to Los Angeles. We want to go southwest the entire way. We want to go freeway the entire way. And again, just kind of like any road trip, there’s going to be bumps in the road. You don’t know what a traffic jam is going to come up and you have to recalibrate and go around it or when the plan changes and you don’t want to go to Los Angeles, you want to go to Denver and you need a complete new recalibration. So again, I really see the planning as that financial road map. I will also say too that there are clients who are very, very clear about what they want their plan to be. They come in saying, hey, I’m getting married, we’re starting a family, we’re buying a home. You know, here are all the variables that we’re considering, like help us navigate through this. And other people who don’t and they come to us saying, hey, I don’t know what my goals are, but I know I need to do something and it’s giving me a lot of anxiety because I don’t know what to do. And you know, one thing that I will say is, you know, especially the the the listeners on this podcast of course are financial uh independence, uh evangelicals and and I’m in that camp, but I will say financial independence is not optional. Now, some people they might want to get there in five years, some people don’t know, but I’d say for all of our clients, financial independence is something that we’re optimizing for and at the very least, that’s what we’re starting for in the plan.
Scott: I completely agree. If you if you’d asked me Scott, what is good in the context of financial planning, it is an artifact. It is a it is a written set of instructions for how to go that diagnosis where you’re at, has a very clear picture of where you want to go, has specific action and guiding principles that will navigate you from the current place to where you want to get to. And I’d also throw in there’s like a checklist component to it. Hey, we have a basic estate, like all like things that are that are common to every financial plan that you’re not going to miss there. And it sounds like your your definition was was very close to what I would have been in there. You mentioned two other things though, you mentioned coaching and you mentioned investing here. Can you describe those if different or added on to the financial planning?
Guest: Yeah, of course. So coaching is number one holding clients accountable because we can build the world’s best financial plan and if people aren’t going to hold themselves accountable to it, then kind of goes for not. So number one is holding clients accountable. But number two is to help coach through financial decisions that are going to be made. So for example, it’s not uncommon that our clients come to us and say, ‘Hey, listen to this podcast and they were talking about rental properties and you know, I think I might want to explore this. Do you think it makes sense?’ Well, the answer is it depends. So let’s run it through the plan and you know, sometimes there’s a very definitive yes or no. Yes, do this, no, don’t do that. A lot of times it’s gray where there’s not necessarily a yes or no, but let’s put it through your plan and let’s coach the client through the decision that makes the most sense for them. People come to us all the time with um job opportunities and say, hey, I’m really comfortable in my job, but here’s a new opportunity that comes with incentive stock options. I don’t know what that means. Can you help describe what it is and can you help me evaluate this trade-off that I’m making between my current job and this new opportunity? So I like to say with the coaching that it’s again, holding clients accountable, but it’s also anytime there’s a decision that’s going to be made where money’s involved, we should be involved with that. And then the last piece is the investing where we build and manage investment portfolios that are in alignment with the client’s goals and objectives. I think your listeners will be happy to hear that, you know, we do advocate low cost, tax efficient, exchange traded funds. Uh so we do want to keep investment costs low. But the way the three work together is that the plan is kind of the foundation of it. The coaching is making sure that decisions are not being made that are counter to what we’re trying to accomplish in the plan. And then with the investing piece is that makes sure that we have that growth vehicle in place that’s going to allow the clients to get to their destination as outlined in the financial plan at the start. So the three of them really go go together.
Scott: Okay, so let’s let’s next talk about the mechanism for monetizing these services, right? We defined three services here. There’s lots of ways to articulate this. I I I thought about coming up with some, but I’m I’m glad we just asked you on there because I I came up with like 11 different things. Like, there’s a comprehensive financial plan, there’s the insurance, there’s the risk mitigation, there’s the estate planning, there’s the investing, and you know, there’s just a whole mechanism here, tax planning and prep can sometimes be included or not in these services. So it but but those three I think are really good core components, the financial plan, the coaching and the investment management. The mechanisms of monetizing financial planning services, the way I’d bucket them are one, hourly or project-based advice, which would be in the bucket of advice only. You pay somebody, you know, an hourly rate and they give you advice for whatever it is that you’re asking about, or or you pay them a project fee. The second is an essentially a subscription or an annual contract. This is what we call flat fee financial planning, often in the range of 2,500 to 7,500 can get a little higher depending on the complexity of the situation. And that’s going to be a a a full service financial planning. It’s going to include the things you just said there. Financial planning is going to include coaching and it’s going to include investment management optionally in some cases. The third mechanism for for monetizing financial playing services is assets under management fees. Those fees typically are charged for the investments that are actually managed by the advisor and they can range from 0.25%, so, you know, $2,500 on a million dollar portfolio a year to uh as much as 10, you know, 1% or even more. So that could be from 2,500 in this example to $10,000 a year on a million dollars in assets under management. And that will scale with portfolio size. That’s what we’re going to be discussing today. The fourth way that these these services are monetized is with commissions. So commissions can be paid to the financial advisor for selling investment or insurance products. So for example, if someone takes out a very expensive whole life insurance policy, the advisor could make tens of thousands of dollars in commissions for originating that policy and get an annuity on an ongoing basis for as long as premiums are paid. And then that brings us to like the last two structures here are basically hybrids that can include form, you know, various forms of these. So fee only is commonly used to describe a model where that you do at at Wall. It’s an AUM only model or can some cases can describe an AUM plus some kind of flat fee or some kind of hourly based compensation for other work there. And then the last model is going to be what we call fee-based. Um this is also a hybrid structure and fee-based basically means that the advisor can do everything, right? They they have all these mechanisms. They can charge by the hour if they want to, they can charge flat fees on an annual basis, they can charge commissions and they can charge AUM, but I think it’s likely common that a fee-based model overwhelmingly is dominated financially with revenue from commissions and uh AUM fees. Do you agree with the way I’ve kind of framed the discussion for mechanisms of of monetization in the financial planning industry?
Guest: Yeah, absolutely, spot on. and uh I’ve used and experimented with a a number of these with the excepetion of the the commissions and the fee-based.
Scott: Why do don’t you use those ones?
Guest: Look, historically I’ve always stayed away from selling products and you know, it feels like of all of the different fee structures, that one has the biggest conflicts of interest embedded inside of it. I would wholeheartedly agree that I would stay away from from one of those where someone is selling you products, they’re earning a big commission. You just have to question what the incentives are.
Mindy: That has historically been my anti CFP stance anti financial planner stance in general is I don’t know why they’re going to be recommending these things to me. Is this going to be a really great product for me or is it going to just be a really great product for their pocketbook?
Scott: Mindy, I think what you said is actually really important here because Mindy said anti CFP, we think that financial planning is a good service that could be provided really well. But I I think the industry actually has now at least in the fire community that instinctive response, ‘Oh, CFP, they’re going to sell me life insurance.’ Like I I think that that’s actually starting to get embedded in the instinctive reaction to these types of services and perhaps to a certain extent with AUM fees as well as we’re going to discuss here. Do you agree with that? Are you seeing that that all all Ryan?
Mindy: And I should clarify, I meant historically, you know, many years ago when I first started investing, oh, why would I have somebody else do this? I can do this myself and I think there’s a lot of people who in our audience have the same thoughts in the past and I am now moving towards, hey, I do think I need some professional advice. I think that I could have benefited from some professional advice 20 years ago when I was having babies and would have perhaps saved more for my kids’ college than I did, which is currently zero and she’s in college right now.
Scott: I think that a CFP is almost like a required designation for somebody that I consider hiring for financial planning services. It depends, right? There there’s sometimes when when you maybe maybe I know somebody and I really respect them and they don’t have that particular designation, but they are licensed. Maybe I’d work with them. but I I think that for I it is a required designation. So I both respect it and my my alarm bells go off immediately when someone says they’re a CFP and I check, ‘Oh, okay, they’re not a fee-based CFP. Okay, now I can now I can begin the conversation.’ And to the point today, ‘Oh, they’re not AUM either.’ Okay. I would be interested to see what if people agree with that, perhaps in the comments here on YouTube, if that’s something that you feel as well when you hear the Monica CFP, or if it’s just me in there, but I I would imagine, you know, it’s almost a requirement and it’s also a flag. And then the other point I want to make is when it comes to insurance, people think, ‘Oh, Scott’s against, you know, life insurance or permanent life insurance.’ And I’m like, no, I see there’s a use case for it in some cases. I think you can generally argue that there’s other ways to achieve the goal of whole life insurance with a better return profile. But really kind of bugs me about that model in particular is if I want life insurance, I want to go and I want to buy life insurance. I want to go to the life insurance salesman, right? I don’t want to go to somebody who’s saying they’re a financial planner and then get sold life insurance. And that’s I think the real problem I have personally with the commission-based model in a CFP. I don’t want that to be a primary incentive structure in there, but if I want insurance, I want to go to the person who says, ‘I’m an insurance salesman. I will of course, I will give you that product, just like I go when I go to a mortgage broker to get a loan or when I talk to a real estate investor about what I when I get a house.’ The answer’s, ‘Of course, you should get a loan. Here’s a big one, right?’ And, ‘Of course, you should buy a house. Here’s a nice one.’ That’s what I’m expecting from the insurance broker, I just I just find that there be that to be a conflict of interest in the commission incentive type structures.
Guest: An an a good CFP should be able to review what the insurance sales person’s coming back with and running it through the plan to see if that actually is the insurance policy that makes the most sense.
Scott: We’re reaching some of the limits of my sophistication with kind of investment investment jargon analysis here because I’m I’m pushing back from the perspective of I think that it probably was true a few years ago that you really couldn’t find a lot of the flat fee. It was it was a little rarer and and that’s still a budding industry here. But it seems like in the last year in particular as folks have gotten, you know, smart or knowledgeable or educated about the fees that are being charged in the space, that a huge cottage industry of small firms are starting to pop up that are charging these flat fees, and that the assertion, the light assertion you’re making, that it that it’s harder relatively to find those is less true and is getting less true all the time, and that there are are an abundance of quality flat fee financial planners who will manage assets and who will make a great living, you know, at 7,500 bucks times, you know, a couple dozen or maybe up to 100 clients doing that, though they’ll make a great living and and begin taking market share from the AUM model. What’s your reaction to that that school of thought?
Guest: That might be true. And I think like any industry, things things evolve. I think about how the broker was replaced by more of this advisory model. There has been and there will continue to be fee compression. There’s no question about that. Which is also where if you look at our fee schedule, I think it’s fair to say that, you know, we are on the lower side compared to what a lot of the AUM fee structures are out there. Is that fair to say?
Scott: Yeah.
Guest: And that’s very intentional because I’ve been a steadfast proponent that there needs to be fee compression in this industry. We’ve already seen it. That’s going to continue to happen. So number one is I think fees are going to continue to be compressed on the AUM side, period. Number two is, if it does make a lot more sense when you’re talking about the full range of the planning, coaching, and investing and you are seeing more competitors sprout out who are doing the ultra high net worth at a fee only level and doing it really well. Yeah, I think the industry might have to change. And and by the way, like maybe we change with it.
Scott: Love it. I I want to I want to wrap up here with one one thought here around a case, a specific case where I think the AUM model may make a lot of sense. um because I don’t because I I want to come in and say, you know, I am not 100% against AUM. I I just believe I just came in with the bias and I was wonderful to talk with you here. I think I still have that that lean, but also concede several points that you made that are really well today that kind of opened my eyes to some new possibilities here. But one specific case where I think that there’s a really good argument for AUM is in the case where you know you need a kind of full service financial planning relationship and you are right on the cusp of kind of that leaner traditional fire or leaner traditional, you know, one to two and a half million dollar retirement account number and in that case, if you’re in the kind of lower end of fees, because the AUM fees wax and wane with portfolio performance, that will reduce sequence of returns risk relative to the fixed ongoing flat fee nature of a model. And so I think in some situations and some fee models comparing between some some folks, there’s actually a really good financial reason to go with the uh AUM fees instead of the flat fee in some specific instances. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Guest: I think there’s some some truth to that. I think I think that does make a lot of sense. You know, look, I I think I think when I think about what our what is a really good client for us, you know, it is somebody who is on the wealth building journey who is not listening necessarily to these podcasts, is not an FI evangelist but needs to understand that FI as I keep saying is mandatory. And I think that person, that avatar who also quite frankly and not to you know pull up another point here, but one thing I’ve heard from clients who have come from flat fee advisors is that that evangelical piece can sometimes be off putting, where it is a, you know what, like they went too hard to the hoop on what I need to be doing right now and I want to get better but I don’t need to do it all right now. That person who wants and needs a long-term relationship who potentially would be subject to firing an advisor because they don’t like to see that money leaving their bank account once a year or putting on the credit card. That’s a really good client for us and a client that we should serve and a client that we will serve very well over a decade plus. So when I look at, you know, again like you go to the sequence of returns risk in retirement, I think there’s a valid point there because AUM does kind of scale with where the portfolio is. Like I totally get that, but I wouldn’t hold that out as like that’s an argument to hire us. The last thing I’ll say is, you know, wealth is very personal. And I think at the end of the day, people need to work with someone who they who they trust and who they see themselves working with in a multi-decade experience. And I think we would all agree here that if somebody finds something that works, that seen progress over time, like your your recent guest who had actively managed mutual funds, like I would argue, they shouldn’t be in actively managed mutual funds. but it works for them and I kind of get it. And I think again, like that’s our client where they need a multi-decade relationship and the AUM model is really the model that keeps the planning, coaching and investing tied together over time.
Scott: Ryan, thank you so much for coming on and sharing this. Can you tell us where people can find out more about you?
Guest: Yeah, first off, thank you so much for having me. This is an absolute pleasure again. Fan of the show, and thank you guys for all that you’re doing. Um you can find me in LinkedIn, Ryan Sterling, or you can go to NerdWallet Wealth partners.com and you can set up a meeting with one of our advisors.
Mindy: Ryan, I really appreciate your time. I learned a lot. I got a lot of changes to my mentality after this conversation. So I appreciate it.
Guest: No, my pleasure. Again, thank you guys so much.
Mindy: All right, Scott, that was Ryan Sterling with NerdWallet Wealth Partners. And I got to say, Scott, I am starting to feel a little bit different about the AUM fee based planners after this episode. I mean, I was fully not expecting to start to see the other side, but I think that AUM fees do have a place, can have a place for the right situation. Um if you identify with what Ryan was saying about, you know, paying your upfront advisor feels weird to take money out of your pocket now, or maybe you would just cancel it. You know, ‘Oh, that’s a budget item I don’t need.’ then maybe the AUM fee is a better choice for you. Just know what you’re paying. know this up front. I love that they put it on the first page of their reports to people. So, Scott, what did you think of the show? Are you sold like me? Are you more steadfast in your beliefs?
Scott: I want to say two things can be true at once. One is, I thought Ryan was fantastic. I I thought that was a wonderful interview. I came at him in particular, hot the entire way through with question after question challenging his model. Let me know in the comments if you think I did a good job on that, but I I I really thought I came in pretty hot and did not let up or allow, you know, as much as I could, any separation of of course good financial planning services are valuable and why AUM versus flat fee is better, right? because those are two different things, right? Good financial planning can be valuable and that does not change whether AUM fees or flat fees are better. But I I thought he did a fantastic job handling the conversation, conceded several really important points and also made some really good points there. I am still at the same time, not convinced that I will uh really ever search start my search for a financial planner that charges AUM fees and certainly will will continue to keep my bias uh against those who make money selling life insurance products or earning commissions on the sale of a financial products. So that that’s a non-starter for me and it continues to be. And I think that’s pretty common um as well for for many of the financial planners who are fee only and charge either hourly, flat fee or as its under management fees. So, I’m still pretty unconvinced, but again, I thought he had a a really strong take here on it. So I I was really impressed and and really grateful for what he’s uh contributing here.
Mindy: I felt he made some really great points for why the AUM model would work for different types of people. I agree with you. I’m probably not going to go and get an AUM based advisor right now, but I can see more of why people do it after this conversation. So I’m really glad that he had time for us today. I thought it was a great conversation.
Scott: Yeah, absolutely. I I I want to call out as well that this is somebody’s actually fairly aligned with some of the things that we think about in many cases here on BiggerPockets Money. It’s still more expensive with the AUM fees, but you can tell those are lower general fees than what we see in other financial planning services. And I I need to think about and noodle on, maybe the audience can help me with some feedback in the questions or email me at Scott at biggerpocketsmoney.com, what the implications are if you have 100 grand to invest and you need a financial planner, if you go with the fee only financial planner and pay that 900 bucks or whatever, is that very valuable? Are you going to get rejected but you know, are not get get the same service as other folks? That’s a question that I think is still lingers for me that I don’t think I did a good job of addressing in today’s show, but would love some feedback on or or thoughts from the audience on on there because that’s that’s an interesting, right? if if if the flat fee model is 2500 bucks and a AUM fee model is 0.9% of 100 grand and I’m getting several thousand dollars with financial planning outputs, that makes sense on the surface, but that doesn’t seem right to me. It doesn’t seem like that’s exactly that’s how it will actually work in practice. Maybe it is, but I would I would love feedback on that.
Mindy: Yeah, I would love to see that feedback too. So CC Mindy at biggerpocketsmoney.com when you email Scott at biggerpocketsmoney.com.
Scott: One of the things that I think was really interesting about what Ryan said is is this concept of if people are paying it and the service is there, I can push them to actually receive those outputs over the over the long haul. And I still really have a hard time with that argument, right? hey, because the fees are deducted automatically and even though they’re on the statement, they’re right there, I’m sure, I’m not doubting him that they’re they’re right there on the on the front page. I have a really hard time with, hey, the fees are deducted, you know, automatically. The client is paying, they don’t feel it coming out of their checkbook, so they don’t mind paying it and therefore they stick with the relationship longer. I have a really hard time with that with that with that particular argument. In fact, it’s it’s one of the things that I think bugs me the most about the AUM model and that that part, you know, I I heard it, I I I don’t I believe the guy that that’s how he feels about that part of the the model, but it’s still something that just doesn’t sit right with me about the AUM model in a foundational way, that that’s one of the reasons why it’s so successful.
Mindy: I’m going to push back on that, Scott and say that you are a very logical person and there’s some people in this world who are not as logical as you and you say to yourself, ‘Well, that’s just what it costs, so it’s going to come out of my pocket. It’s not going to come off the top.’ And there are other people who say, when it comes out of my pocket, I I truly believe people feel that I’ve got today Mindy problems and I’ve got future Mindy problems. I don’t want to pay for future Mindy problems with today Mindy money.
Scott: Fair enough.
Mindy: And if you’re logical, great, listen to Scott, do his thing. If you’re more Mindyesque then then you know, my argument makes a little more sense and maybe the AUM model is the one for you.
Scott: That argument I hear it. I understand it. I just I just can’t wrap my head around it. You’re right Mindy, it’s not it’s not how my brain works. It just bugs me that that particular point. And the other thing that I think is is common to a lot a lot of this is I think that some of the financial planners I talked to, and and Ryan was not like this, but there but they have to be there has to be a little bit of this. There has to be I’m really good at this, right? Like you’re going to hire a lawyer who charges top dollar and here I’m okay. You know, they’re they’re going to all they’re going to tell you they’re really, really good at what they do, you know, to a T in there. and I think that that’s a challenge for me to hear, you know, ‘Hey, the really good ones, you know, are going to charge you top dollar here.’ Well, what is good? What does a good financial planner do versus, you know, someone who’s not who’s less good? I have a really hard time when I hear that argument or a version of that argument from a financial planner, you know, in the AUM fee or the the commission space. and I think that, you know, a flat fee or hourly advisor will come in pretty hot saying, ‘What are you talking about? I’m very good. Let me show you exactly how good I am in all these cases.’ And I think it’s going to be really hard for a typical person hiring a financial planner who doesn’t have a very clear playbook to discern between the the skill sets of of financial planners. I think it’s going to be a core challenge you’re going to have to develop if you’re going to hire any financial planner in any of these capacities because they’re all going to sound good to a lay person who’s who’s trying to hire that first one. I think it’s a skill you’re going to have to develop over time and finding is really kind of understand what you’re looking for and what you’re hiring for. But I’m really skeptical that the good ones are in the AUM space or the fee-based space and that the discout advisors are over here in flat fee or hourly. I I just don’t buy it at all. I think it’s I think it’s BS, frankly, can’t say the other one because we’re we’re a family-friendly podcast here.
Mindy: Now, I’ll throw this out to everybody who’s listening. If you have an advisor, what do you like about your advisor? What makes your advisor good? Or if you have let an advisor go, what made them bad? What was the thing that they did that made you say, I don’t want to be with you anymore? And let’s see what a good advisor looks like.
Scott: Absolutely. And by the way, last thing I want to say here on this because I know we’ve gone on for a long time. I do not think AUM fee advisors are bad or even that some of the commission folks are necessarily bad. There’s probably great financial advisors in every one of these categories and there’s probably lousy ones as well. And so interviewing a financial advisor for the quality of their financial planning, their investment, uh toolkit, their tax strategy, those types of things. I think is independent of the the fee model that that they that they charge. I think you can find good and bad in each of those fee models that we discussed.
Mindy: I agree. All right, Scott, should we get out of here?
Scott: Let’s do it.
Mindy: That wraps up this episode of the Bigger Pocket Money Podcast. He is Scott Trench. I am Mindy Jensen saying, I got to hop out of here.
