The Moment I Realized Most Retirement Advice Was Broken
It didn’t happen during a market crash.
It happened at the top of a bull market.
I was working inside a large firm at the time. As a newer advisor, part of my role was running financial plans and reviewing portfolios for more senior advisors.
One case stuck with me.
The client was a dentist earning over $500,000 per year. Over time, he had contributed more than $2 million into his investment strategy.
This was around 2023. We had just come through one of the strongest 10-year equity markets in history.
I pulled the performance data.
Over the previous decade, his average return was roughly 3 percent.
Three percent.
Through one of the strongest bull markets we’ve ever seen.
I didn’t know every detail of his risk tolerance conversations. I didn’t know every nuance of his discussions. But I did see the structure.
Cookie-cutter model portfolios.
Layered complexity.
High internal expenses.
And still a 1 percent advisory fee on top.
He was paying full freight.
The outcome didn’t justify it.
That was one of the moments where something shifted for me.
Complexity Without Clarity
The portfolios looked sophisticated.
Multiple sleeves.
Sub-managers.
Alternative strategies.
Defensive overlays.
On paper, it looked advanced.
In reality, it felt like complexity for the sake of complexity.
The more complex something becomes, the easier it is to justify higher fees. It can be packaged as something wealthy people “need.”
But sophistication should produce clarity and results.
Not just layers.
When I stepped back, I realized the system wasn’t necessarily broken because it was malicious.
It was broken because it was standardized.
Accumulation templates.
Pre-built models.
Minimal customization.
Clients were slotted into structures.
Those structures were rarely redesigned meaningfully for retirement income.
The Second Realization
Around that same time, I attended a presentation on the future of financial planning.
The core message was uncomfortable but accurate:
Financial advice is becoming commoditized.
Information is everywhere.
Portfolio construction tools are accessible.
Robo platforms can rebalance and allocate.
Basic asset allocation is no longer a differentiator.
Mass-market advisors who rely solely on:
Basic diversification
Generic retirement projections
Standard model portfolios
Will struggle long term.
Computers can do most of that now.
That wasn’t discouraging.
It was clarifying.
Where Advisors Actually Add Value
If portfolio construction is increasingly commoditized, then what matters?
Two things.
Behavior.
And integration.
Behavior means helping someone stay disciplined during volatility.
Integration means coordinating:
Investments
Taxes
Income sequencing
Estate planning
Survivor scenarios
Multi-property complexity
That kind of work cannot be automated easily.
It requires judgment.
It requires context.
It requires trust.
Why I Focused My Practice
That’s when I became more deliberate about who I wanted to serve.
Affluent families in Grosse Pointe with roughly $2M to $10M in investable assets.
Not because smaller households don’t matter.
But because at that level:
Tax coordination becomes meaningful
Withdrawal structure matters
Estate planning complexity increases
Behavioral discipline becomes critical
Those families benefit the most from architectural planning.
Not just asset allocation.
The Core Shift
The moment I realized most retirement advice was broken wasn’t about performance alone.
It was about alignment.
Clients were paying:
1 percent advisory fees
Internal fund expenses
Layered strategy costs
For standardized portfolios that were rarely re-engineered for income.
That didn’t sit right with me.
Retirement is not an accumulation problem with withdrawals added.
It’s an income architecture problem.
Once I saw that clearly, I couldn’t unsee it.
What Changed After That
I stopped thinking in terms of:
“What’s the model?”
And started thinking in terms of:
“How does this turn into durable income?”
I stopped asking:
“What’s the average return assumption?”
And started asking:
“What happens in year one if markets fall 30 percent?”
I focused less on product and more on structure.
Less on complexity and more on clarity.
Because long term, clarity compounds.
Complexity often just bills.
