The first question I ask an advisor is, 'What are you saying now when someone asks you what you do?' Oftentimes the advisor says: 'I am a vice president with x brokerage.' This is too generic, and it's not client-centric.

It's the emotional vs. the rational or logical. In many instances, people view these balances as found money, but there are few instances when cashing out makes sense.

Congress can address that dilemma, or growing probability of AMT exposure, by passing legislation that retroactively reduces that bite, and it would probably be as simple as maintaining or increasing the exemption amount.

The goal isn't for the advisor to divorce him or herself from the brand, but rather to go beyond it.

Rebalancing doesn't work every time. It works over time.

When we speak with leading advisors, those that really take their practice seriously, the really good ones do have client advisory boards. They are willing to spend the time and effort to embrace other methods or practices.

The REIT market is liquid, there are low transaction costs in terms of getting in and out, and you avoid the maintenance headaches of ownership (while maintaining exposure to an asset class) that could perform well in theory should inflation go up.

If I want to build wealth to transfer to the next generation, I can let it grow on a tax-free basis.

Rebalancing forces the investor to do what is typically emotionally uncomfortable but financially productive. Emotional biases tempt us to chase performance. An advisor can bring an objective third party perspective that's more rational.