Why Tax Optimization Is the New Alpha in Wealth Management with Scott Smith

Jack Sharry: Hello everyone and welcome. Thank you for joining us for this week’s edition of WealthTech on Deck. The wheels of progress in the advice and wealth solution space continue to move forward. Today we’re going to talk with someone who studies wealth management and advisory trends as closely as anyone. Please join me in welcoming Scott Smith as our guest on WealthTech on Deck for today. Scott is the senior director of advice relationships at Cerulli. In describing his role on LinkedIn, I love this. His direct quote about what he does is, I use research, knowledge, and analysis to define problems and provide solutions in the wealth management segment. The rest of us write paragraphs upon paragraphs of what we do. Scott got right to the point. Then frankly, this is exactly what Scott does. He figures out what’s going on, talks to a whole lot of people all over the industry, and draws conclusions about, we’re going to be the beneficiaries today. And of late, he has been through an intensive period of study, writing two different research reports, a lot of overlaps. We’ll talk about them as if they’re one, or Scott will. One is called the Cerulli Report, US managed accounts 2025, prioritizing tax optimization. The other is the Cerulli Edge, US managed accounts edition, the taxation issue, second quarter of 25. We’ll look at both. In case you missed it, we’re gonna talk about the importance of taxes as an issue impacting product development and distribution and a whole lot more. And I’m confident you’re gonna learn some things. Scott has been on our show before and always provides useful insights as to where we are and where we’re headed. Scott, welcome back to WealthTech on Deck. Great to have you here.

Scott Smith: Great to be here, Jack. Thanks for having me again.

Jack Sharry: Yeah, so let’s start with talking about each study. What was the overlap? I think it’s a fair amount as you were indicating earlier and then we’ll dig into each study. So talk about at a high level what you observed and why you did it and then we’ll talk about what you found.

Scott Smith: So the managed account quantitative update is our annual report. We make a large report every year. It’s 150 to 180 pages. This year it’s 174 pages exactly. And we try to get everything that’s going on in the managed account space kind of consolidated in that report. The quarterly edge, managed account edge we do on a quarterly basis is kind of the highlights of what’s going on most currently. So in this case, we took some of the managed account quantitative update content and make sure we get it into the edge. We got it out about a month earlier and it has a slightly different audience. We want to make sure that everybody got a high level view with this. And if they wanted to dig deeper, they’d have the quantitative update coming in another month with more data, more feedback.

Jack Sharry: Yep. And high level, why’d you do it? What’d you find? You know, just sort of, and then we’ll dig in, but what’s the point? I can guess, but I’d rather have you say what, why’d you do it?

Scott Smith: So the bulk of our research every year is about market sizing and flows and what money is going to what platforms. In addition to that, we try to have a, what we call a thematic chapter at the beginning of each annual report, focusing on what we think is the big thing that year, right? So this year, there was a lot of buzz building up over the course of 2024 about tax optimization, all the different things you could do as far as taxes are going. We heard a lot of movement in the market as far as firms buying other firms and adding new solutions to the advisor’s quiver, if you will. So I think that really got us going and then and I started talking to you know platform sponsors, advisors themselves, tech providers like LifeYield and SEI. So trying to get a 360 view of what’s going on as far as taxes go in client portfolios.

Jack Sharry: And maybe, high level, what’d you hear? What’d you find? What’d you learn?

Scott Smith: Okay, so off the bat, one of the things we asked all the platform sponsors at all the major broker dealer firms is what are your platform development priorities in the coming year? So in 2023, we asked this and providing better portfolio construction and support for advisors was the highest at 52%. So great, that makes sense, making portfolios better for clients. This year we added improving tax management capabilities to the list and that finished receiving 82% of responses, the next highest one was 43%. So people were about twice as likely to respond with improving tax.

Jack Sharry: What was the second? Just curious what number 2 was.

Scott Smith: That was still providing better portfolio construction support for advisors. It was still a strong second, but everybody was like, yeah, we have a new priority and it is bringing tax alpha to our client portfolios.

Jack Sharry: So as you did the study and you found tax optimization was twice as important as portfolio construction sounds like, I’m sure that was one of the surprises, but what did you find surprising? What did you find not so surprising broadly, but on these topics as well?

Scott Smith: Yeah, I guess the encouraging part was everybody was working on the big ticket items, right? When it comes to stuff like tax loss harvesting, tax savings documentation, tax efficient transitions, and tax smart withdrawals, everybody’s at least working on it. So it’s not like something that’s not on the drawing board at least. In the case of something with tax loss harvesting, about three quarters of firms already have some kind of automated tools to do it, but there’s probably room for improvement. And three quarters have some kind of automated tool. But there’s still 25% of firms reporting that their advisors are doing tax loss harvesting on a manual basis. And I think we both know that that’s a, it’s good that they have the opportunity to do it, but that’s probably not the best solution… an advisor who’s probably gonna be remembering on December 18th that they should get some tax losses harvested, as opposed to a system that’s looking at this on a daily, weekly or monthly basis to take advantage of those opportunities when there are short term dislocations, for instance.

Jack Sharry: Yeah. So you talked to lots of different people. You talked to the press, you talked to product managers, you talked to distribution folks, you, fintechs, you’ve talked to all sorts of different folks. What, any observations that sort of stand out? Some of the things you hear, maybe it’s different by segment. I’m just kind of curious, what’s the buzz? What do you hear? What are they working on? What are they concerned about? If taxes are important, what do hear about their thoughts with regard to all things tax?

Scott Smith: Yeah, I guess I’m surprised at the lack of progress we’ve made in this industry in some cases, right? The idea of something like asset location, right? It’s something that we’ve all known about for 20 years, but rarely has made it into client portfolios, yoy know, separating qualified assets from non-qualified assets and taking advantage of capital gains rates. That seems like pretty basic and something that we should have been talking about 10, 15, you know, I should have been writing sales ideas on this 20 years ago, but that, it kind of never made it to the level of this is something we’re talking about when I’m writing sales ideas about how to overfund a 529 plan. That’s a great idea too, but tax… asset location is way more important to most investors than overfunding a 529 plan, which I wrote more than one sales idea about.

Jack Sharry: Yeah, yeah. So talk about, why do you think that is? What do you hear from them? Why haven’t they tackled? Are they tackling it? Is it just words?

Scott Smith: Yeah, I think as far as are they tackling it, it’s slowly… these things are slowly making their way into platforms but you have legacy platforms that are trying to interact on 20 or 30 different places, right. And you have compliance doing one thing you have portfolio accounting doing one thing, you have the advisor doing another thing, and getting them all to work together smoothly is really a lot more difficult than many firms can like execute on in the short term. I guess even at the most basic, right, comes down to compliance and having an investment policy statement for an account and being able to apply that investment policy statement to the entire household instead of just a single account. You know, in your basic, the most basic example, right, you have a 60-40 portfolio, but you may separate those into two different pieces with one, the 60 being qualified and the 40 being non-qualified. And the most compliant systems can’t look at that portfolio and go, it’s 60-40 for the household. They’re just focused on this one account and saying no, that’s the wrong portfolio for this client because it doesn’t match up with what we expect them to be. And just taking that, even just going up one level to have that more household view is a basic that we need to account for that again, it slips through the cracks for 20, 30, 40 years.

Jack Sharry: So I want to dig in on this particular topic because as you and I both know, I don’t want to speak for you, but I’m quite sure you see it this way. The biggest impact if you want to improve tax alpha, improve tax optimization is asset location. All the studies indicate that, Vanguard, Morningstar, EY, they all say the same thing, that asset location is the most important way to improve outcome. And so at the very least, it’s important. Most important, we can argue, suppose, but the bottom line is it’s important, very important, and very hard, frankly, and especially if you’re of a mind that compliance is somehow in the way, because I can point to a whole bunch of firms that are doing asset location, and they don’t have the compliance problem. Is it a systems problem? Is it a knowledge problem? What’s the problem?

Scott Smith: I think there’s both, right? There’s a systems problem that’s telling people in compliance who don’t understand what’s going on here that there is a problem and then they’re defaulting to accepting what the system is telling them rather than the explanation. And they’re just not familiar with it. Once they can get comfortable with it and perhaps there’s an override or there’s a note on the account, most firms can make it through on a manual basis. But the fact that that’s a problem that gets flagged in the first place can deter advisors from getting into it. If they go to set up the portfolio and the system might tell it’s wrong before it’s even implemented. So it never even makes it to the level of compliance just because of kind of… built into the portfolio accounting system.

Jack Sharry: Another objection that I run across as I talk to firms that are trying to figure out how to generate tax alpha, tax improvement, is that we’re giving tax advice. Now, I have my answer. I’m curious, what’s your answer when people raise that as an issue?

Scott Smith: I’ve brought this up numerous times to everybody involved in this. I think this is tax planning, right? It’s trying to get there. We’re always defaulting to have them cross-reference with the tax preparation professionals or CPA if they have one. But all of this is just awareness of what the opportunities are and trying to implement them without, it’s giving the client options and saying, isthis something you want to explore? If you want to check with your CPA, great. But I think it’s pretty clear that with all the compliance in place, we are definitely focused on planning and execution rather than advice in this part of the wealth management interaction.

Jack Sharry: Interestingly, one of the things that we’ve learned is we’ve had these conversations with countless compliance departments and the business side of things is that really the rule says you can’t interpret tax law. If you’re an accountant, you can interpret, but you can’t as an advisor. And really all you’re doing here, and by the way, done on any kind of tax sensitive or tax smart UMA, they all have the same basic concepts or algorithms or however they do it. So it’s just following the rules. It’s just making sure you don’t not follow the rules. And interestingly, I don’t know if you hear any of this, but we have multiple times when we talk with someone on the compliance side, when they get to understand recommendations that have some science behind it, some math, some algorithms, they feel so much better because right now it’s advisors kind of guessing, using your spreadsheet example or yellow pad, or even worse, which is not uncommon, where people are kind of guessing at it. And then they see there’s a systematic way, because we’ve had this conversation with many on the compliance side and business side that if… and we’ve actually done it where we give the same exact portfolio to five advisors and guess what?

Scott Smith: You get five outcomes.

Jack Sharry: We get five very different… And so it’s less and less of a problem, but just sort of more points up… Something I’m sure you learned about, love to hear more, is just trying to get their heads around taxes. Cause that’s just not something… people know a lot more about the management process. But taxes are something that’s probably less schooled and we’ll call it that. But what do you hear?

Scott Smith: Yeah, I think the important part that we keep hearing about is making it process oriented and not manually oriented and relying on the advisor to make those discretionary choices. Whether it’s a calculator or a whole workflow or just something to make sure, you know, you’re not going to, you know, our goal isn’t to educate advisors on every line of the tax code. That’s ridiculous and that’s not what we’re here for. And that would get us into that tax advice problem. But letting them know what the fundamentals are, what each of these steps are doing and then giving them the tool to do it is the most important part. I think a lot of the advances in this industry are limited by advisor adoption, right? If it’s hard to do or they can’t figure out or they don’t understand it or they can’t answer the client’s second question about what they’re doing, they’re not going to do it. So I think it’s most important is just creating this path of least resistance to tax optimization, making it so easy for the advisor to do that they’d be, it’s almost harder for them. If you can make it harder for them not to do it, you’re probably better off and making it so ingrained in the system that they’re going to take advantage of all these opportunities and not leave something on table just because they don’t want to do a little bit of extra work. If the system can do it for them, we all win.

Jack Sharry: Sure. So let’s talk about tax loss harvesting. We kind of skipped over that. That sort of seems to be the first way to go. And our friends at 55IP did a great job in terms of bringing that to the fore. I’d love to have you comment on that. And I dare say I’ve heard there’s a fair number of copycat systems out there. So talk a little bit about tax loss harvesting and transitions. They’re of, you know, flip sides of the same coin. What are you hearing? What are people thinking? Where are they going? That seems to… certainly it’s easier than asset location, so that’s more likely to get the attention now, but talk about that.

Scott Smith: Yeah, so I think with the case of tax loss harvesting, I think you’re exactly right in that 55IP got everybody interested in it. And that was like four or five years ago where they seemed to like make that a priority. And the idea of the transition management, that’s another one where we’ve perhaps not done the best we could for the past five or 15 years, right? People were liquidating portfolios, creating cap gains that are affecting the size of the portfolio on the incoming portfolio side or taking those assets from somewhere else. The idea of you planning for this, minimizing for this, giving a budget that can be an annual budget where you can transition over the course of several years. All these things have improved the process so greatly. I think we’re setting a new level of expectation, right? You just can’t liquidate the account and then reinvest it in a new one. That’s just malpractice, it seems like at this point. If you’re not having one of these overlay systems where you can make that happen, whether it’s, know, through numerous providers at this point have at least some functionality of doing that, I think that’s going to be the expectation in firms that don’t have something like this, I think they’re going to be at a competitive disadvantage by not being able to check off these four or five, at least four or five core boxes on the tax optimization capabilities charts.

Jack Sharry: So one of the things we probably should clarify for our audience, so much of tax loss harvesting, transitions, rebalancing, that’s another thing we can talk about, is all largely at this stage for most folks, single account. And so that’s an easier thing to deal with, frankly, and a good thing, not a bad thing, but it’s also more limited because clients just don’t own one account, typically, the kind of clients that the advisors we all work with know and love. It’s when you get into that multi-account thing, that’s where things get hairy. So talk about that. What do you hear? How are people grappling with that? Fundamentally, the challenge is how do you coordinate multiple accounts in a tax-efficient way.

Scott Smith: Yeah, I guess the most common thing I heard about multiple accounts when firm, platform sponsors try to implement some kind of solution for those is that they spend time and effort and potentially years trying to build out a proprietary solution and then end up figuring out it’s more complicated than they can handle internally and just end up having paid a lot of money internally in salaries and bonuses or whatever else, spent a lot of effort, spent a lot of time, and then realizing they haven’t made minimal progress at best and then looking for third party solutions to help come in and say, hey, we’ve done this before. We can help you do it. And I think that’s probably the path of least resistance for these platform sponsors is that that’s not their specialty. They haven’t been working on this for years. And like you said, there’s five firms. There’s your firm, there’s 55IP, there’s somebody like Parametric. All those firms have had experience doing this and are going to be able to get a firm up to speed much quicker than they’re gonna be able to do this internally.

Jack Sharry: Of course, there’s the biggie, retirement income, because that necessarily when you’re getting to that stage of the game, let’s call for a typical millionaire next door kind of household. It’s probably 50-50 qualified, non-qualified assets, roughly speaking. No rule there, but that’s sort what we see typically. And how you draw down matters because of the taxes. So talk about what you hear from your clients in terms of advising them.

Scott Smith: As far as creating income streams goes, I think most firms have yet to make that a priority. Unfortunately, when I entered the industry in 1996, my job was setting up systematic withdrawals from variable annuities. And I think a lot of people are just still doing systematic withdrawals from mutual funds or variable annuities or something else. And that’s their core thing. And they’re still operating under rules of thumb that are no longer applicable or just outdated altogether, right? I think, you think back, it was thinking about traditional IRAs or anything else, it was defer, defer, defer, right? It was like the thing. And then we had Roth IRAs come in, you’re like, oh, what’s the order of operations there? And now you have to think about Social Security, right? And Social Security being taxable and like, like the way I think about it now is like, well, you’ll probably want to draw down that IRA first so you can lower your income so that less Social Security is taxable. So there’s like, there’s 10 variables working in interaction here that an advisor isn’t going to solve, most firms aren’t able to solve, again, without that third party provider saying, untangling all these things, looking at the root causes and being able to solve on a simultaneous equation, you’re not going to get the right outcome. I think there is what, thousands of Social Security claiming strategies just on the Social Security side. There’s thousands of permutations, so…

Jack Sharry: The number we’ve come across is 2,700. think the Social Security Administration told us there are 2,700 and some additional number, over 2,700 rules that you need to follow or be aware of. So anyway, it’s not easy.

Scott Smith: Yeah, so I guess, yeah, what’s the ratio between advisors who understand all that stuff versus those who are dealing with clients in retirement? Pretty small, right? There’s very few true experts who can handle all this stuff without a system doing it for them. And even those who are experts probably have a system doing it for them as well. So making sure there’s back-end support on this, again, is one of those things that is gonna have to be an expectation in the near future. If we’re all focused on retirees and you’re not doing the best at creating money in their pocket from the assets they have, you’re just failing them and failing your advisors.

Jack Sharry: So in an ideal world, I’m gonna lay it out and just ask you to comment on this. In an ideal world, you do a financial plan, which is essentially an inventory. It’s a multi-account inventory, multi-product, multi-account inventory. And then as you accumulate, during the accumulation phase, you’ve got to consider taxes as part of that, and asset location and tax loss harvesting and any kind of transition as accounts may be consolidated and all that kind of stuff needs to be factored in, all of which have tax impact, right? And then over time, as a portfolio grows and expands and as markets change and things shift and assets get poured into one bucket versus another, rebalancing becomes important. You got to make sure that that stays consistent with your objectives and all that consistent with the objectives of the financial plan. And then someday you got to figure out how to draw down, including qualified, non-qualified, including both Roth and traditional IRA assets and then you got to affect the factor in Social Security. So the firms you speak with because you speak with everyone, do they come back to you and say, well, how do we do that? What do they do about that? Just say in a week, do they throw up their hands or what do they do?

Scott Smith: Yeah, I think the most common answer is we’re working on that and the timeframe is somewhere between six years and 600 years. Again, these things are, we’ve been working on these legacy systems that are so, we talk about trying to steer an oil tanker, right? And that’s difficult to do. Trying to steer a legacy portfolio accounting or advisor workstation into a better place and kind of redoing the whole thing on the way while still trying to do business is not easy for anyone. I think everyone recognizes it’s almost the idea of like, I guess it willbe like dynamic household financial management, right? To making sure you’re doing that all across the household, keeping all those things in order. But there’s so many variables that people just haven’t considered in our industry to this point. Like you said, like single account management has been our focus, and creating total return on that single account is hard enough. And that’s where the bulk of advisors’ attention has been, right? Security selection, asset allocation. But there’s a 360 view of it. You have all these other things to do that just is not an advisor’s wheelhouse. So the firm setting up systems to take care of this and making it as easy as possible for advisors to do that is really the only way to compete long term.

Jack Sharry: So I know you get this question, so I’m not sure how you answer it. So everything we just described is, as we, you and I are both from the Boston area, is wicked hard. This is wicked hard. And so the question then becomes, how do you advise them? And, what was the number you said, 82% are working on, trying to deal with taxes? Double the number two, which is portfolio construction at 43%, is I think what you said. So it looks like their hearts in the right place. But are there budgets? Is their thinking? Is this just wishful thinking? It seems to me like it’s… We talked to the firms that are serious about this stuff and it’s hard, it’s just hard. It’s doable, but it’s hard. But what’s your assessment of where we are and where we’re going?

Scott Smith: Yeah, think everyone’s subject to budget constraints, right? If we all had an unlimited budget, maybe we could get closer to that six years instead of that 600 years, but no one has an unconstrained budget. So that’s number one. I guess my recommendation to the firms I’m working with is basically a Pareto analysis of what their book looks like already, right? Is there lot of money, high net worth dollars coming in with that transition analysis would be the most important thing. Do they have kind of older investors in withdrawals already where you’d want to prioritize that tax smart withdrawals and Social Security optimization, guess so. You have to react where your clients are now and be able to see what would serve them best in the short term because most firms are only able to pick one from a whole list of the things they can hopefully do within the next two years and prioritizing that and having the biggest impact on the clients seems like the best way to go. Beyond that, asking for more money from their higher levels of executives is probably like getting water from a stone at this point, but my other recommendation is to make sure that, you know, when you start this process, you’re engaging with all the third party providers, again, yourselves, 55, Parametric in some cases to make sure that they’re, they’re not recreating the wheel, making sure you’re taking advantage of what other people have done. And, you know, they’re the hardest thing for you internally could be something that another provider has got down pat and can do easily. So I think making sure that they’re aware of all the resources out there, all the people that are experts already and are willing and able to help.

Jack Sharry: So this is very interesting because we’re talking to a lot of people that are quite serious about it and willing to spend. This has not been inexpensive. It’ll drop in price over time as more and more come on. It’s the age old.. anything new is a little bit more challenging. We’ve also done, by the way, we’ve done analysis, which I’ll share with you at another point, but that basically this stuff may appear to be expensive, but it pays for itself if you invest in the software in under a year. So it’s like the payback is significant. So there’s that. But I’m curious as to what, less curiosity, more I’ll just make the statement. I’d love your reaction. My sense is it’s not like 55IP transitions and tax loss harvesting became the rage when they made it simple to do it, make it easy to get at it. This, what we’re talking about, the real tax optimization, what you gotta do, is this is a lot to it. It’s not that easy. Not… systems weren’t built that way. There’s all sorts of impediments, but it’s doable and firms are doing it. My prediction is that, and I’d love to hear your thoughts. You’re to get another firm or two that’s of size that’s going to launch this stuff. And then all of sudden people are gonna scream like, well, how do I catch up? What do I do? You know, it’s kind of what happened with the 55 IP phenomenon, but your thoughts on that.

Scott Smith: No, I think that’s exactly right. And I think in this industry, we’re all, we’re all chasers of early movers, right? I think a good example in the recent past was like direct indexing providers overall, right? Aperio went to BlackRock and then everybody had to buy a direct indexing provider in the next 18 months. So I think when we hear these big moves coming, I think everyone’s gonna be like, it has to be part of that me too approach to it. Of like, we can’t be left behind. If everybody’s doing this, we have to be doing this. We can’t let this opportunity slip through our fingers. So I think there will be some panic once it becomes perceived as industry standard and you’re not there yet, you’re going to have to answer to your bosses as why weren’t we working on this five years ago? So I think that’s the real risk to people is, the best time to start prioritizing if you weren’t five years ago is today. And I think that’s a lot of people aren’t going to end up…

Jack Sharry: Yep. Yep. It’ll be interesting to see how this all plays out. So any key takeaways you want to share with our audience about what would you do if you were them?

Scott Smith: Key priorities for platform sponsors, I guess number one, is get started and see where you are and see which capabilities are in place right now. And I think that’s something that a lot of firms aren’t aware of, that they’re not using all the capabilities they have built into their platforms already. So I think step one is make sure you’re using the stuff you have and understanding that. And then are there incremental improvements that can be made there that aren’t a complete system redo? Some people have found that we just hadn’t turned on this functionality yet and making sure that you’re using everything you have. Then beyond that, you know, creating a strategic approach to laying out all these capabilities over time and seeing what the order of operations should be for your firm. Is there one you can, is there one that’s easy to knock out for your firm or is there one that  really applies to your client base much more than any of them? Picking that one and just making sure you knock that out, making sure it’s implemented near perfectly, right? Because once an advisor uses it and it doesn’t go right, they’re going to be reluctant to use it again, and they’re going to tell their friends how it disappointed them. So any incremental services have to be well supported to make sure that they’re not falling through the cracks so that an advisor’s first impression isn’t a bad impression.

Jack Sharry: Gotcha, gotcha. So one last question. You’ve been on our show before, so you know what’s coming. As I recall, last time around, you talked about what you do outside of work for fun, or you’re passionate about, and you shared that you have taken up the comedic arts of improvisation. And I understand you’ve expanded your repertoire. So fill us in, what do you do outside of work for fun that people might find interesting or surprising?

Scott Smith: Yes. So I started doing improv comedy at Kismet Improv in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, two years ago or so. I wanted to challenge myself and do a, they had a class to take a, to create a five minute standup comedy set, which is different from improv in that standup comedy. You write it and you memorize it and you pitch it. And I went through it, and I did my performance and my whole class did great. It was all 10 of us and we all did great. But then I realized it felt just like doing my job, except there was no PowerPoint over my shoulder. In comparison, doing improv comedy, I’m on a team. It feels like I’m playing pick up basketball, having a great time. So I crushed my first five minute stand up set. And I think it’s also going to be my last stand up set, just because I’d rather not feel like I’m missing a PowerPoint over my shoulder. I’d rather feel like I’m playing pick up basketball with my friends than doing another PowerPoint deck.

Jack Sharry: That’s great. That’s great. And the stories that you told in your stand up, was they personal, or?

Scott Smith: I focused on what I like to call “clothestrophobia.” I can, I noticed your neck is pretty untied right now as well. And I also not a big fan of tries. I think we’re, we were two of the early adopters at most of the conferences. I recall seeing you out of guys who don’t wear ties because I feel like my head is going to explode most of the time. So I explained how that was a lifelong struggle for me. And that’s why I started wearing little flower boutonnieres in my lapel and just threw all the ties in the trash.

Jack Sharry: I was just going through trying to get rid of stuff in my closet. I got a gazillion ties, like what are these? Why are these still here?

Scott Smith: Might be an emergency, you might need them for something.

Jack Sharry: You know, even for weddings and funerals, I just… nope, not gonna. Well, Scott, always great to have this conversation with you on any and all things having to do with advisory and advice and all that stuff you follow so adeptly so thanks for this. This has really been a lot of fun. For our audience, thank you for tuning in today. If you’ve enjoyed our podcast please rate, review, subscribe, and share what we’re doing here at WealthTech on Deck. We’re available wherever you get your podcasts. You should also check us out on our dedicated website, wealthtechondeck.com. All our episodes are there along with blogs and curated content from many folks around the industry. Scott, again, thanks. A lot of fun. I really enjoyed it.

Scott Smith: Pleasure to here, Jack. Call me anytime.

Jack Sharry: Will do.