The biggest shift I have seen for independent advisors in 2026 is that compliance is no longer about checking boxes at filing time. Regulators expect proactive systems, clean documentation, and an audit trail you can produce on demand. The three areas drawing the most regulatory attention right now are the SEC Marketing Rule (especially testimonials and third-party content), cybersecurity, and the use of AI tools. The advisors who treat compliance as a business strategy rather than a tax on growth are the ones positioned to grow faster and more confidently. I have been working in compliance long enough to remember when “being compliant” mostly meant getting your filings in on time, keeping your disclosures up to date, and being ready when an audit came. That world is gone. In Episode 15 of IFA Insights, Sarah Pais and I sat down to walk through what compliance actually looks like for independent financial advisors in 2026, and what I am seeing in the firms that handle it well. Watch Episode 15: Compliance in 2026 on YouTube . This piece is the longer version of that conversation. If you only take one thing away, take this: the advisors who understand compliance today are the ones who are in position to grow tomorrow. How has the role of compliance changed for independent advisors in 2026? The biggest shift is that advisors are expected to be proactive. It used to be about checking boxes, filings, disclosures, getting ready for the audit. Now regulators expect very clear systems in place, strong documentation, and intentional processes behind everything you do. That goes especially for marketing and communications, technology, and disclosures around conflicts of interest, real or perceived. The margin of error has gotten smaller. The question regulators are asking is no longer just “are you compliant,” it is “can you prove it right now, this minute.” Documentation is everything. If it is not written down, archived, and retrievable, it might as well not have happened. What are the biggest regulatory focus areas in 2026? T hree big areas: 1. Ongoing enforcement of the SEC Marketing Rule The SEC continues to focus on testimonials, endorsements, and third-party content under SEC Rule 206(4)-1. The 2022 amendments are still being actively enforced, and recent actions show the SEC is paying close attention to how advisors document, disclose, and review marketing materials. 2. Cybersecurity Cybersecurity remains a top priority for the SEC. The 2024 amendments to Regulation S-P expanded incident response and notification expectations, and examiners are checking that firms have documented policies, monitoring, and ongoing risk assessments. This is a major focus area. 3. AI usage AI moved from “an emerging tech category” to its own focus area in record time. Formal guidance is still developing because the technology is moving faster than the regulators can keep up. That does not mean firms get a pass. It means the burden of demonstrating responsible use sits squarely with the advisor. Just because something is common, and other firms are doing it, does not mean it is okay. I think back to my parents asking, if everyone jumped off a cliff would you jump too? It is not a defense in 2026 either. How can compliance be a growth enabler instead of a bottleneck? Most advisors I talk to have been trained to see compliance as the “anti-business” department. The bottleneck. The “no” desk. That is not how it has to work, and it is not how it works at firms that are growing. My philosophy is not to say no, but to say how. When an advisor brings me a real-world business situation, my first question is never “can we reject this.” It is “how can we make this work, what does the framework look like, and what documentation do we need to make sure we are protected?” That partnership only works when there is an ongoing, transparent conversation between the advisor and the compliance team. Especially right now, with advisors moving faster and growing faster, the worst outcome is for compliance to be discovered at the end of a project. We want compliance present at the beginning, in the middle, and in everything in between. What do advisors need to get right with social media, testimonials, and digital marketing? T hree core things, and I see firms succeed or stumble depending on how they handle each. Archive everything. Every social media post, every iteration, every revision. The SEC will want to see all of it. If you posted it, edited it, or pulled it down, the audit trail should show that. Books and records expectations under SEC Rule 204-2 apply to digital marketing the same way they apply to traditional materials. Clear and accurate disclosures. Especially when testimonials or endorsements are involved. The Marketing Rule lays out specific disclosure requirements, and the SEC has been consistent in actions where firms missed them. Structured approval processes. When a regulator asks how a piece of marketing got from draft to published, the answer should be a clear audit trail. Submitted on this date, here are the changes requested, here are the changes made, here is the final approved version, here is when it went live. Advisors who succeed in this area are the ones who build repeatable processes and treat them as part of how everything ships. What are the compliance risks of AI, and what guardrails should advisors put in place? The biggest risk I see is over-reliance on AI outputs. Advisors who copy-paste AI-generated content into client communications without careful human review are taking on risk that ultimately sits with them, not with the AI tool. The advisor is responsible for the information that goes out under their name. AI can be wrong. That is not a quirk, that is how the technology works. The human-in-the-loop review is critical and is actually the only way these tools function safely in regulated work. The guardrails I encourage every advisor to have: Documented use. Where AI is used in your workflow, how outputs are reviewed, and who reviews them. Approved tools and approved use cases. Internal guidelines that spell out which AI platforms are vetted and what they can be used for. Human review on everything. Especially anything that reaches a client or a prospect. Regulators are paying very close attention to AI usage right now. Documentation here is not optional. What about AI note takers in client meetings? I get this question a lot, and my view is that AI note takers can be a great tool when used right. They give you a strong recorded history of the last meeting, you can reference back to confirm the client’s objectives match what is in their portfolio, and they reduce the time you spend on administrative work. The conditions: Client consent. This is starting to come up more in regulatory conversations as expected, not assumed. Get clear permission from the client to record. Document that consent. Platform approval. The tool has to be on your firm’s approved list, with the data privacy and security practices you can stand behind. Output review. AI note takers can hone in on the wrong topic or miss a critical exchange. Review the output before you treat it as the record of the meeting. When those three conditions are in place, this is one of the more valuable AI applications I see in advisor workflows. What compliance red flags should an advisor watch for when evaluating a new firm? If you are weighing a move and the new firm’s compliance department is part of what you are evaluating, here is what I would be looking for, and what would put me on alert: Lack of clarity and documentation. If the compliance team cannot point you to written policies and procedures, that is a problem. Slow response times . When you submit something for review, how long does it sit? In a high-functioning firm, the cycle is days, not weeks. A “no” culture . If every conversation with compliance starts with the answer “no,” and never gets to “how,” that culture will limit your growth. Police, not partner. This is the simplest test. Does the compliance team feel like a partner who wants you to succeed within the framework, or does it feel like enforcement that exists to slow you down? The right compliance support is one of the things I would put on the short list of factors when evaluating any firm. What does a best-in-class compliance program look like in 2026? Three things, in my view: Accessibility. Advisors need timely answers so they can keep their business moving. Collaboration. A team working toward solutions inside the framework, not toward restriction for its own sake. Proactivity. Identifying risks before they become problems. When all three are in place, advisors can focus on growth instead of second-guessing whether they are protected. What practices should advisors build into their daily and weekly workflows? A few non-negotiables: Structured compliance workflows for marketing, communications, and client documentation Document everything. I keep saying this because it is the single most important habit. Pre-approval marketing frameworks so nothing ships without going through review Consistent team training so the people around you know the rules too Advisors who build these in as part of how they operate, rather than treating them as occasional tasks, are the ones who stay protected. What will the SEC focus on if they walk into an advisor’s office tomorrow? In my experience, three places tend to come up first: 1. Marketing materials and the policies and procedures behind them 2. Books and records under SEC Rule 204-2, with an emphasis on whether everything is on file and readily accessible 3. Cybersecurity policies , incident response plans, and recent risk assessments Most issues, in my experience, surface in one of these three areas. The shift I would encourage every advisor to make Start viewing compliance as part of your business strategy, not just as a regulatory requirement. Compliance is part of the industry you operate in. It is not going away, even in periods when enforcement appears to slow. The SEC is still watching, and history suggests there will be a swing back. Foot off the gas is the wrong move. When compliance is done right, it does not slow you down. It helps you grow, compliant, faster and more confidently. If you are evaluating your current firm and whether the compliance support is genuinely set up for your growth, that is a conversation we are happy to have at ARC. The full episode is on YouTube. Frequently Asked Questions

ARC is pleased to announce the addition of Honileth Virani, MBA, as the firm’s new Advisor Partnerships Manager.

Evaluating an RIA goes beyond fee comparison. A due diligence guide for advisors and firm principals, with red flags, leadership questions, and what right-fit looks like.

If you are weighing a move, the headline payout is rarely the full story. I tell every advisor I work with the same thing: figure out what the firm is taking off your revenue before the grid even applies (platform fees, franchise fees, technology, real estate), what services come bundled, and whether the comp structure helps you build the practice you actually want over the next five to fifteen years. Transition checks at three to three-and-a-half times trailing twelve are forgivable loans, not windfalls. Most advisors who fixate on the payout number miss the math that matters. I have been on the phone with hundreds of advisors over the years. The conversation almost always opens the same way: tell me about your payout. And I have learned that when an advisor leads with that question, they are usually asking about something else entirely. In Episode 14 of IFA Insights , I sat down with ARC’s CEO, Sarah Pais, to walk through what I have seen in those conversations. The hidden costs that catch advisors off guard. The three structures shaping the industry. The lottery-versus-loan reality of those big upfront checks. This piece is the long version of that conversation. I wrote it because the math matters, and I want every advisor reading this to walk away with the questions they should be asking before they sign anything. What are advisors really asking when they ask about payout? When an advisor calls and opens with “tell me about your payout,” I treat that as a signal, not the actual question. In my experience, the real driver is one of three things: They are unhappy with something at their current firm and have not pinpointed what. They talked to someone in the industry whose payout sounded better. They sense their firm is not being fully transparent about what it collects, what services cost, and what the grid actually means. Most of the time it is the third. Sometimes a firm is pulling revenue in ways that are not clearly disclosed. Sometimes a previous transition was rushed and the advisor never had a clean look at the math. The pure-payout question becomes a stand-in for a transparency gap the advisor has not yet articulated. That is why my first move is always to figure out which of the three is driving the conversation. The answer to each is different. What hidden costs come out of an advisor’s revenue before the grid applies? A high-payout headline does what it is supposed to do. It captures attention. What it usually does not surface is the deductions that come off revenue before the grid applies at all. Here are the line items I see catch advisors off guard most often Platform fees The biggest one. Platform fees are charged for doing business on a firm’s fee-based or advisory platform, and they can run from a couple of basis points to over twenty. They come off the top, which means the grid is applied to what is left, not to your original revenue. On a smaller asset base, that cascading effect takes a real bite. Platform fees are usually tiered by AUM. If you have substantial assets on the platform, your rate may be much lower. If you are under fifty million, you can be paying meaningfully more. Franchise fees A flat annual fee that some firms charge for the right to use the firm’s name. Easy to overlook in a payout comparison. Technology, staffing, operational, and real estate costs At the wirehouses, these get bundled. The trouble is that most advisors do not use the full suite of services they are paying for. The cost is still being deducted from the revenue split. When you go independent, those line items become visible because you have to price each one separately. Sometimes that is a shock. It is also the first time the math is honest. The way I put it on the show: your grid is not your grid. Your true grid is what you keep after the deductions you do not see in the headline. What are the three main compensation structures for independent financial advisors? I think about the industry in threes. High payout, low support . True RIA model with a custodian like Schwab, Fidelity, or Pershing. You keep more, but you run everything yourself. Low payout, high support. Wirehouse. The kitchen sink is included. The grid reflects that. Hybrid. A substantial payout, closer to the pure-RIA range, with a baseline of services attached and the option to add more as you need them. My read on the industry is that we are shifting toward the hybrid. Aggregators are near their peak. Wirehouses have been losing recruiting battles for years. The advisors who used to be natural buyers of low-payout high-support are increasingly looking for something that gives them more freedom without forcing them to be their own back office. That said, the right answer is not universal. Some advisors do well in low-payout high-support structures, particularly senior advisors who are not focused on growth. The right structure depends on your practice, your growth horizon, and what you want to be doing day-to-day. How does a compensation model affect your growth and practice valuation? Compensation does more than describe what you take home. It shapes what you can build. If you are focused on growth, your comp model needs to free up your time and give you access to the technology, marketing, and support that drive new client acquisition. Wirehouse advisors are typically restricted to firm-approved tools. Hybrid and independent advisors have a lot more latitude to choose the tech stack and the marketing partners that fit the practice. If you are closer to the end of your career, the calculus changes. Independent and hybrid models have, in many cases, supported stronger practice valuations at the point of sale, though outcomes vary significantly by practice and market conditions. Even if growth is no longer your priority, the comp structure has implications for the eventual exit. I tell every advisor the same thing: every practice is different. There is no single right answer. There is only the right answer for your specific practice, your specific growth horizon, and the specific values you bring to client work. Is a wirehouse transition check a windfall or a loan? I want to be direct about transition packages because this is where I see advisors make the costliest mistakes. When a wirehouse offers three to three-and-a-half times trailing twelve as an upfront check, an advisor’s eyes light up. That is the design. The check feels like hitting the lottery. It is not. It is a loan. Forgivable note, multi-year vesting schedule, tax implications attached. If you need the money for a real life event, take it. No one will fault that, and sometimes it is the right call. But if your priority is building the practice over the next decade, in many cases the breakeven analysis has shown that a higher grid, less upfront, and a comp structure that supports growth can produce a better long-term outcome — though every situation is different and this is not a recommendation for any individual advisor. There is a breakeven point at which the higher grid more than offsets the foregone upfront check. Running that breakeven analysis is part of what I do when I work with an advisor who is evaluating offers. The mistake is not taking the check. The mistake is taking it without knowing what the alternative would have produced over time. What questions should advisors ask during compensation due diligence? If you are about to sign anything, here is the short list of questions I would put in front of you. What does the firm collect from my revenue before my grid applies, and how is that disclosed? What is the platform fee, and how does it scale with my AUM? Are there franchise fees, technology fees, operational fees, or compliance fees I am not seeing in the payout headline? What services are included, what services cost extra, and what services do I actually use? If I needed to grow my practice by thirty percent over the next three years, would this comp structure help me or hold me back? If I wanted to sell or transition the practice in ten years, what does this comp structure do to my valuation? Where is the breakeven on the upfront transition package versus a higher grid over time? How much autonomy do I really have in choosing technology, marketing, and operational tools? That list is not exhaustive. It is the minimum. The ARC view At ARC, we believe advisors deserve transparency, flexibility, and a comp model that grows with them rather than capping them. When I work with an advisor weighing a move, my approach is to spend the time understanding the practice, build a true cost analysis, and identify the comp structure and services that actually fit. The worksheet is an analytical tool for informational purposes and does not constitute personalized investment, compensation, or legal advice. Advisors should consult their own counsel before making any transition decisions. The full episode is worth a watch. I share a story in there about the first cost analysis I ever did, back in 2010 with a Merrill Lynch advisor who was ready to go independent. That conversation is what got me thinking about all of this in the first place. Some advisors take the upfront check. Some build for the breakeven. Either path is defensible. The mistake is not knowing which one you are choosing. Frequently Asked Questions

Advisors seem to be constantly hearing that artificial intelligence is transforming financial services or threatening to replace human professionals. That noise has created legitimate concerns: Which AI tools can I trust? How do I stay compliant? Will this damage the client experience I have worked years to build? According to Matt Welsh, Director of Wealth Advisors and Financial Planning at 360 Wealth Planners, the answer is not about replacing advisors. It is about removing friction. When implemented intentionally, AI tools for financial advisors can help reduce administrative burden, improve consistency, and create more time for meaningful client conversations. Why AI Tools Can Fail Inside Advisory Workflows Some AI implementations do not fail because of the technology. They fail because they do not align with how some advisors actually work. Financial advisory workflows are not linear. Advisors move between: Client meetings Portfolio adjustments Compliance reviews Administrative tasks Team collaboration Generic AI tools can struggle because they are not designed around this nonlinear structure. Matt explains how he sees AI exceling at accelerating prep work and follow up tasks, not replacing strategic conversations. Another challenge can be adoption. Some advisory teams include experienced professionals who are understandably skeptical of new technology. If a tool does not deliver value quickly, it may be abandoned. That may not be a technology problem. It could be a leadership and rollout problem. For independent advisors and larger firms alike, success can depend on structured implementation, not enthusiasm alone. Some Common Mistakes When Choosing AI Tools Advisors may assume AI adoption is a technology decision. In reality, it can also be a leadership decision. Matt identifies two major mistakes: 1. No Clear Use Case When 360 Wealth Planners began implementing AI, they set clear expectations for what tools should accomplish: Speed up drafting client communications Improve clarity in follow-up emails Assist with research Support workflow efficiency Without defined outcomes, AI could become a novelty instead of a productivity tool. 2. Skipping the Feedback Loop Rolling out AI without training and feedback creates resistance. Teams need: Clear instructions on how to use tools Guardrails for compliance Ongoing refinement based on real use cases Generative AI for advisors can require skill. The quality of output can depend on how well you prompt it. Matt encourages advisors to test AI on topics they know well first. This can help them learn how to ask better questions and evaluate responses critically. Compliance and Data Protection For financial advisory firms, compliance is non-negotiable. You cannot paste client Social Security numbers into a public AI tool and hope for the best. Matt emphasizes working closely with your broker-dealer or compliance department to identify approved AI platforms built for financial services and protecting critical client data. Some key compliance considerations include: Use tools approved by your compliance team Adherence to extensive new regulations regarding protecting client data when using public systems Understand cybersecurity requirements for data storage as well as record retention policies Maintain documentation and oversight At 360 Wealth Planners, tools designed specifically for financial services are prioritized. That distinction matters. For retail investors reading this, this should hopefully provide some reassurances as these considerations are specifically geared to protecting your data. Responsible advisors are not handing your private data to unchecked software. They are integrating technology within strict regulatory boundaries. Practical AI Implementation: Where the Time Savings Can Happen The most powerful example from Matt’s workflow is meeting preparation and follow up. His team uses AI powered meeting tools to: Organize notes Generate follow up summaries Create task lists Surface relevant conversation starters for future meetings The result? Matt estimates saving 20-30 minutes per meeting, with immediate gains of 10-15 minutes even during early adoption. Multiply that across dozens of meetings per month and the impact becomes significant. Smarter Meeting Prep Over Time AI typically becomes more effective as it learns context. For example, if an advisor discusses adjusting a client’s investment objective during a meeting, the system can surface that change in the next meeting’s preparation materials. That enables proactive follow-up: Is the client’s portfolio aligned with the new objective? Is the client still comfortable with the updated strategy? This is workforce automation designed to be applied intelligently. It does not replace the advisor but could help strengthen continuity and consistency. Beyond Meetings: Generative AI for Advisors Matt recommends a tiered implementation approach. First Layer: Meeting Intelligence Tools These deliver immediate ROI through: Automated note organization Task generation Prep summaries Second Layer: Generative AI Writing Support Tools like ChatGPT can assist with: Drafting client emails Creating newsletter outlines Overcoming writer’s block Improving clarity in communications Important: Advisors should never treat AI generated content as final. It must be reviewed, personalized, and aligned with compliance standards. Third Layer: Project and Workforce Automation For larger firms, project management platforms enhanced with AI can help: Coordinate multi-person workflows Track deadlines Improve cross-team visibility This can become increasingly valuable as firms scale. Where to Avoid AI One of the most important boundaries can come from your use of educated decision making. AI tools can produce affirming, agreeable responses. That does not mean they are correct. Matt cautions against allowing AI to make client-facing financial decisions. Artificial intelligence cannot: Understand emotional nuance Deliver difficult conversations about unrealistic goals Replace empathy in financial planning The emotional side of money remains human. For investors, this can be critical. The advisor relationship is not being automated away. Instead, AI can help remove administrative friction so advisors can focus more on strategy and guidance. Getting Started with AI Tools for Financial Advisors If you are an independent advisor or firm leader wondering where to begin, Matt suggests a realistic first step: Implement an AI meeting assistant approved by compliance. Measure time saved per meeting. Expand into Generative AI for communications. Introduce project level automation as your team grows The key can be incremental adoption. Start where friction is highest. Prove value. Then expand. The Bigger Picture: Efficiency Can Help Enable Better Advice AI in financial advisory workflows is not about replacing advisors. It is about reallocating time. If you save 20 minutes per meeting and hold 30 meetings per month, that is 10 hours regained. Those hours can be reinvested into: Deeper financial planning More proactive client outreach Business development Professional education As Matt Welsh demonstrates, thoughtful implementation of AI tools for financial advisors can create measurable efficiency while preserving the human core of advisory relationships. Matt emphasizes the future of advisory is not advisor versus AI. It is advisor plus AI. For independent advisors, forward thinking firms, and investors alike, that distinction can make a big difference.

Boost your advisory firm's online presence with ARC's Social Suite providing compliant, custom-branded social media content and automation, exclusively for ARC-affiliated financial advisors.

Independent financial advisors could expect major changes in 2026, including AI-driven efficiency, more complex retirement planning, increased platform competition, and higher client demand for personalized, human-centered advice.

S ocial media is no longer optional for independent financial advisors, it’s where credibility, visibility, and client engagement begin. But for many advisors, managing social media feels like another full-time job.  This post explores: Why social media is essential for your advisory business The hidden costs of DIY social media The power of consistent posting How Social Suite eliminates the biggest advisor pain points Actionable next steps to build your online presence