Clay Christensen: Hi, this is Clay Christensen, and I want to welcome you to a podcast series we call The Disruptive Voice. In this podcast, we explore the theories that are featured in our course here at HBS, building and sustaining a successful enterprise. In each episode, we'll talk to alumni of our course and others who are trying to put these theories to use in their lives and in their organizations. It's great fun to hear from them, and I hope that you find these conversations inspiring and useful. If you have an idea about a topic or a speaker that you'd like to hear more about or if you'd like to comment on our work, please reach out to us here at the school.

Derek van Bever: Hi, I'm Derek van Bever, and you're listening to The Disruptive Voice. Regular listeners of this podcast will know that from time to time, we invite students from the BSSE course to join us and share what they learned while researching the final papers they write for the class. These papers allow the students to study an organization of their choosing. Looking at it through the lenses of Clay's theories to understand its history, as well as its best strategy going forward. In recent years, the fintech sector has been one of our students' most popular subjects for study. In fact, the second Disruptive Voice podcast we published back in 2016 concerned the robo-advisor betterment, founded by John Stein in 2010.

We thought it was high time to check back in on the state of fintech in this age of coronavirus with two experts on the sector. We're joined today by Professor Luis Viceira, who holds the George E. Bates chair in the finance department of Harvard Business School and is the senior associate dean of executive education at the school as well. Also joining us is David Schneider, a 2013 graduate of HBS and co-founder and CEO of Harness Wealth, a fintech that specializes in connecting interested investors to curated financial, tax, and estate planning firms through an online platform. In the interest of disclosure, David counts Luis among his favorite professors while he was here at HBS and also as an advisor to his business. So this conversation will sort of be all in the family. Welcome to you both.

David Snider: Great to be here.

Luis Viceira: Great to be here. Thank you, Derek, for inviting us.

Derek van Bever: The fintech sector has been catnip for students of Clay's theories for a number of reasons. The robo-advisors fit the pattern of hybrid disruption that we discuss in the course, offering both a more affordable alternative for current users of traditional investment management services, as well as expanding the market to individuals who've never seen themselves as rich or skilled enough to use this service. And advances in user experience and analytics capability are making the job to be done of looking after your financial future more easily fulfilled all the time.

I thought in our conversation today we might look back a little bit at how the sector has evolved and look at how it's performing in this age of lower case d disruption due to coronavirus, and then maybe look ahead to see if we can glimpse what's on the horizon. If that's okay, Luis, I thought I might start with you. You've published extensively on this sector. You've authored two cases on the robo-advisor Wealthfront as well as on Vanguard's rollout of its personal advisor service, and you've had a number of interviews in which you've talked about this sector, important developments in it, where it's going. What attracted you to the fintech sector originally?

Luis Viceira: Well, Derek, I have always been very interested in financial innovation in the asset management area, particularly when it comes to services, techniques, and products that help democratize Wall Street. And I mean that in the sense of helping the average household to save and invest better. Especially when we think about the long run for them. For example, I wrote the first HBSK study on inflation protected bonds, known in the US as TIPS when they were first issued in the US back in the late 1990s. That was a huge financial innovation that allowed people for the first time to actually [inaudible 00:04:06] in the portfolios of any investor, particularly households.

And [inaudible 00:04:12] bonds that were protected against the [inaudible 00:04:15] effect of inflation on the value of those bonds. I also wrote in 2006 the first case on target date funds when they'd been just launched in the industry. And arguably that has been also a tremendous important financial innovation that has been very highly beneficial to lower-middle net worth households to help them save for retirement in ways that were not available to them back in time.

I also wrote the first HBSK study on ETF. Back then, I focused on what was then the most successful ETF business, the iShares business, which actually was born and created back on the west coast in San Francisco. It's interesting how much of this financial innovation has been happening in Wall Street in the past 20, 30 years, has been happening not from New York but actually on the west coast and more specifically around San Francisco and Palo Alto. Anyway, iShares, as you know, was eventually required by BlackRock in the midst of the financial crisis from [inaudible 00:05:24] global investors, the creator of the business iShares.

And it was probably the best acquisition ever done by BlackRock and probably one of the best acquisitions in the history of Wall Street. And I wrote the case because I thought the creation of ETFs was a very important catalyst that could lead to further financial innovation. And arguably, robo-advisors. Think of Wealthfront, think of Betterment, et cetera. They probably would not exist today if ETFs had not been invented and popularized first.

So there's this thing about how one innovation opens the whole field, opens the whole industry, to farther innovation that helps basically bring techniques and services which are prohibitively expensive and therefore only available to very high net worth individuals or institutional investors to actually bring them down in cost and available to the average Joe, the average Luis, the average Derek, who is out there saving for retirement or saving for his next house or maybe the other kind of big investments and big expenses they were going to have in life. And I was actually very interested in the possibilities that robo-advisors could open for that average net worth household.

Derek van Bever: Through the cases that you've written across time, Luis, you've really chalked the field for a conversation that we have in class where we really focus in on financial services and look at all the ways in which activity chains have been reshaped, broken up, how services have been made available to do exactly what you're saying to both reduce cost but also to democratize finance. And it's really remarkable evolution that the industry continues to go through. In the instance of robo-advisors, in an interview I read with you, you said once that the founders of the robo-advisors have a firm belief that the insights of modern technology can be competitive with someone who's personally advising you and at a fraction of the cost.

Are they right? Have we reached that point of parody or advantage where technology can outperform the human advisor?

Luis Viceira: They can do as well. At least in two basic dimensions that I think are very important and at two primary sources of building net worth and building wealth in the long run. One is diversification across asset classes. We're not talking about diversification across many stocks. The mutual fund industry solved that problem for us, here in Boston by the way, back in the 1920s. We're talking about being able to have portfolios that are well diversified across many asset classes. ETFs made available to us tools, vehicles, that allows every one of us to have a reasonably well diversified portfolio within an asset class.

The robo-advisors had been able to put together, to construct those portfolios. That's a very important source of long run wealth accumulation, and [inaudible 00:08:44] know that. The [inaudible 00:08:46] model, many of these ... the tenants of how [inaudible 00:08:50] foundations, pension funds, high net worth individuals, high net worth households have been investing for decades, for more than a century, are all based on this firm belief on the power of diversification. And there is another thing which is being diversified and being rebalanced irregularly. In this time of coronavirus, people who have been regularly rebalancing are way ahead of the game from those who have not probably been doing that as they should have been.

And these robo-advisors, basically they took these two basic tenants of sound investing for the long run and make that automatic. They automated that and did it to ... We have a very low cost of manufacturing [inaudible 00:09:38] these portfolios and making it available to regular people like us at a fraction of the cost that it would cost us to get that kind of service from most financial services, from most financial advisors.

I'll give you an example of how technology has made this possible. Back in 2005 when I wrote the case on target date funds with Vanguard, which by the way we're doing that for retirement accounts in the sense of bringing portfolio diversification on rebalancing. I do remember the Vanguard people ... That's in the case study. They were telling me that for them to be able to go and give portfolio construction advice to clients, that client had to have at least $500,000 in assets with them for them to be able to do that in a cost effective way.

And remember, Vanguard is known at the lowest cost producer of asset management services in the US and probably the world. Well, at least it was in 2005. [inaudible 00:10:40] BlackRock is another one today. And that service was actually limited to building new and initial portfolio and giving you an annual checkup on that. Well, today Betterment, WealthFront, and most of the robo-advisors will build that portfolio and rebalance it regularly for you even if you have literally just a few hundred dollars. I believe with $500 or $1,000 you can open an account with them, and they will do that for an extremely low few of just a few [inaudible 00:11:14].

Why is that possible? What happened between 2005 and basically when these robo-advisors started in earnest, which was only five, six years later? That was technology. So technology's key to allow all of this to happen and bring all these services to regular households. There's one catch though, which is what I tell my students the magic word in investing, and generally in financial services, and that magic word is actually trust. If people don't trust a company or they don't trust a service, they will hardly trust that company or service with their money. And it takes time to build trust in technology. As a way of managing money at least.

It is also probably a generational effect. Some generations have grown with technology being present in their everyday lives. Trust in technology for everything from health to their daily purchases. And that trust is already there that's allowed it to [inaudible 00:12:30] think about that. Sending your money to a website. [inaudible 00:12:36] savings. To a website where you don't see who is behind and where human interaction is going to be either absent or extremely limited. It takes some trust to do that, and younger generations, and I think my generation, too, has grown accustom to doing that. But it takes time.

I remember working with a group of very young entrepreneurs back in the early 2000s who were effectively building the first robo-advisor here in Boston. And it was a very sophisticated one. That firm was called Smartleaf, and in fact, that firm exists today. You know what happened? They had almost no traction with investors at the time. They were just too early. People do not send money to a website. They had actually to switch their business model to actually become a portfolio construction service to advisory firms and banks. That was not their original idea. Their original idea was Wealthfront, Betterment, and robo-advisor. They were just too early. They had the technology maybe was there but not the trust. So trust is as important as technology for these firms to be able to succeed actually.

Derek van Bever: David, let me invite you into the conversation here. Two years ago now, I guess you and fellow HBS alum Katie English founded Harness Wealth. Can you tell our listeners your path to creating it? And then if you could, this issue of trust, how do, when people are approaching Harness Wealth, do you have a trust hurdle to get over or do you find that they naturally ... that we're evolving now to trust these platforms with our futures, financial futures?

David Snider: Yeah. So our vision is to deliver successful professionals through technology an experience akin to what is being delivered by the ultra high end of the market in the family office. Whether it's liquidity from someone selling their business, increased financial complexity from someone making partner, we recognize that the best solutions, at least at that level, are multi vertical in nature, and they require seamless coordination between financial tax and state planning as well as the execution.

From my experience in building a large technology platform for a different professional service vertical, that being real estate agents in Compass, and Katie's experience actually running as the CMO of Europe's largest robo-advisor, that there was an opportunity to combine the best of technology but pair that with human expertise. I'd become interested in real estate and financial services at Bain & Company and Bain Capital, and through HBS really wanted to find a role at the intersection of those two industries. And it was sort of happenstance that I ended up getting invited by a friend to join the early team at Compass, which sort of showed the power that, while Zillow, which you could sort of say is akin to some ways of that low end disruption of financial services, made a huge change, it didn't eliminate the need for the majority of people still to use real estate agents. It just changed what the expectations were for those delivering the service. So we see a lot of similarities on the financial service side in pulling those together.

Derek van Bever: And on this issue of trust, do you find that your prospective clients are ... You're kind of sailing with the wind here and they have a propensity, a tendency to trust you from the beginning, or do you have to kind of build that trust and prove that you're worthy of their trust?

David Snider: Absolutely the latter. For us, it's been a combination of being extremely selective in the advisors that we're working with on the platform who bring their own credibility having advisors like Luis, investors that are recognizable, and then a certain I think level of professional polish to the digital experience. I think these days consumers judge and assess trust based on the quality of the experience online as much as in person. So by having superior technology, you also can build trust in that way as well.

Derek van Bever: One of the ways that I understand what you're doing at Harness is, as Andy McAfee at MIT would say, you're helping your advisors to run with the machine. You're helping them to integrate technology more into their practices and then using the platform and the power of technology to do better matchmaking between your clients and your set of advisors that you've curated. You've chosen three areas to focus Harness's practice on: financial planning, tax planning, and estate planning. I'm wondering why those three, and of the three, is there any one that you find that millennials need the most help or are making the most mistakes?

David Snider: So when I was researching the early concept for this, I spent time talking to the head of the Walton family office to folks at the Gates family office and others to understand what was being done at the most complicated, highest wealth groups, and found that it was really the intersection of those three areas that were critical to them to delivering the best possible experience for the families that they were serving. So I felt like part of the opportunity in the market was finding a way to help people address these things holistically, and we found that these were the three that part and parcel went together the most closely.

There are other verticals like property and casualty insurance, like real estate decision making, that are important as well, but these three really seemed fundamental. And I would say of those, tax in particular is one that really today sits at the intersection of effective financial planning, estate planning as well. So making sure that we've got that right layer connected is quite important in the platform that we're building. And while we see a pretty even balance between people coming in initially thinking about financial planning investment management versus tax, the vast majority of people that come to our platform are looking for multiple services because they've hit some inflection point of complexity that they recognize they want a solution that is multifaceted rather than one dimensional.

Derek van Bever: That is, if you'll pardon the expression, so BSSE that you've looked at what is the suite of services available to the ultra high net worth market, the Walton/Gates family office tier of the market and said how can we version that down and make it more accessible to a much broader population. That's really cool, and I imagine at this moment very reassuring. I'm wondering how has demand for Harness Wealth been affected by coronavirus? We've gone through lockdowns, job losses. I'm wondering, is it your sense people are kind of hunkering down and planning for the future or avoiding the subject for now? What's the state of mind that you find people coming to the platform with?

David Snider: Yeah. So we've seen an interesting increase in a few different areas. I think broadly as a fintech community and as a business specifically. I think broadly there's just been a lot more activity in individuals investing directly, some to good and some challenging [inaudible 00:20:47] with that. Lots of people, I think, paying attention to having estate planning in place given a lot of tragic and untimely fatalities. For us, it's been a lot of people at home sort of saying, "Gosh, if I'm not going to tackle this now, when am I going to get to it?"

So we saw actually pockets of increasing demand based upon where rolling stay at home orders were concentrated. So it started in the northeast, moved down to the southeast, and sort of across parts of the country. There definitely has been a correlation, and I think the volatility in the equity markets has only reemphasized the need for many that having the right solution despite what the market conditions might be at that point in time is really important.

Derek van Bever: Luis, you anticipated this moment as well. I align in the case that you wrote on Vanguard really stuck out at me. Karin Risi, the head of Vanguard's retail division, says in your case let's wait to see what happens when those millennials' lives get more complicated, which I guess they just did. Do you have a sense of how the market is responding to the needs of consumers in this topsy-turvy time of coronavirus?

Luis Viceira: I think she was meaning this in two ways. One is the one you are meaning, which is what happens when these millennials get to live through a real deep recession and a very high market volatility. Will they still trap technology with their money, with their long-term savings? And I think we have just found out that they do. Because you know I'm involved with a robo-advisor in Europe, and they actually have seen their business growing. And for the reasons that I think David is mentioning, which is people are taking a step back, people are thinking how the future's going to look like, do I have my finances in order, what can I do, what is it that I have been getting from whoever was providing me those services.

Was this firm servicing me well? Was this firm charging me the right type of fees? Et cetera. And coming many of them to the conclusion that maybe there is ways I should be changing my portfolio and the way I invest for the long run and actually shifting to these firms. So it has been a test of trust that has happened in the last three months, and a test of trust that I think robo-advisors appear to have been doing reasonably well.

Then she meant that sentence in a different sense, which is what happens when those millennials grow in the sense that they age, and their net worth grows, and they have kids, and they start thinking about state planning, and taxes become a much more important thing in their lives. How these firms are going to be able to serve them as their financial needs become increasingly more sophisticated. And that was the area where the robo-advisors, the plain, vanilla robo-advisors have only a few [inaudible 00:24:12], mostly because the needs are highly individual. They need a lot of tailoring.

In other firms, Harness Wealth has come to that segment and is trying to cover that gap that is happening with these growing millennials are becoming middle-aged people who have ... The needs for sophisticated services are growing, and they find themselves that the plain vanilla robo-advisor they may have been trusting is not good enough. They need something else. But yet when they look what's out there, they see they're expensive or prohibitively expenses for them, and who is helping them to do that? There is a market opportunity there that firms like Harness Wealth are, I think, coming to try to fill that gap.

Derek van Bever: Interesting. David, are there patterns that you see in the clients who come to you? Life events that they're going through where they say, "This is the moment when my life just got more complicated. I need help"?

David Snider: Yeah. I mean, just to frame it, Cerulli did a study looking at age, wealth, and people's perceived need and willingness to pay for more financial and investment advice. And just looking at people age 30 to 39, for those with $100,000 and $250,000, about 20% said they have that need and willingness to pay ... $250,000 to $500,000, it's 27%. $500,000 to $2 million, it's 30%. $2 million to $5 million, it's 61%. So clearly as asset level and wealth increases, there is a desire for more of that. The triggers and not surprising. We look at that in a lot of detail for our clients because it informs how we think about our messages and where we go to market. And the largest is a liquidity point trigger founders that have had, or employees of tech companies with an exit, people that have elevated in their career.

As well as life stage moments where people have their first or second kid or other things that it's like okay, now is the time to get this in order. I've sort of been just focused on my career. Now I also ought to focus on helping to make sure that my balance sheet and a passive side of my financial picture is as well tended to.

Derek van Bever: Yep. I guess that's also driven how you seek to acquire customers for Harness. Luis notes that the high cost of customer acquisition is a recurring headache for fintechs who don't have that physical footprint that a lot of incumbent organizations do. What are your best sources of new clients? How are you finding people who have kind of systematically those special needs?

David Snider: Yeah. So there's a near term strategy and a longer term one. I would say in the near term, we really focused on being a source of highly specific in value added advice on other platforms that are serving people that look like the clients that we want to. Platforms helping people with secondary market transactions, platforms for small business owner financing. The second piece is we've built out a corporate financial wellness offering so that for later stage tech companies in particular, there are a lot of employees saying to the CFO or HR team, "How do I think about these options? What's the tax implication of this thing that may happen to the business," et cetera.

There isn't a good resource for them to leverage. So being a platform to help all of the employees of a business is one that's been quite successful to date. And third is we're building the platform in a way that we hope to drive the advisors that are on our platform not only to work with new clients but also to use our technology in serving their existing ones. So the combination of those three we think all work together quite nicely over time.

Derek van Bever: That's really cool that that sort of B to B to C model that you mention, to be able to earn the trust of employers to direct their employees to your service. That is no mean feat. Congratulations.

Luis Viceira: And Derek, I think that's a strut that [inaudible 00:28:43] illustrates. The achilles heel of growth in the robo-advisor business, which is client acquisition. Most robo-advisors figure out ways to deliver services at a very low cost, but scale, to make that low cost a reality, is very important. And growing organically, acquiring clients, is very expensive. And that's the course that has become very hard to overcome for them. Harness Wealth and what Dave is telling us, they have figured out a way to scale out by not just going after individuals like you and me but also about our employers that can immediately open hundreds of clients if not thousands of clients for the firm at once.

When I wrote the case on WealthFront, one of the things that's in the case is what was the study for growth for them. They were focusing on millennials, but not just for the sake of we think that's the segment we can better serve. It was also because they were very familiarized with technology. They were also very familiarized with social media. And they had the strategy of viral acquisition. If I like the services, I'm going to be posting in social media. My friends will see that. They trust me, they trust my taste, they trust my judgment. I post that in social media. They're going to like that. They might come to WealthFront as well and become clients and then post on their own social media. And through this kind of viral channel in social media to acquire clients at the low cost.

Building one client at a time through just bringing them in in the usual ways of TV marketing, press marketing, personal interviews, et cetera, I have seen estimates around there that put the cost at least at $800 all the way to $1,500, $2,000, even $3,000 of acquiring a new client. That client is going to only bring $100,000, say, in assets, and that's on the high end for most of these. And you're going to be charging them, say, 20 basis points. For you to recover the $1,500 that might cost you to acquire that client is going to take forever. That makes already a losing proposition, the business a losing proposition.

So acquisition costs and acquiring clients, that's a super important factor that is always ignored and not sufficiently addressed in my view when some of these founders are thinking about their business and starting it. And the irony of this is because of this factor, you can actually disrupt and change an industry in the financial services area, in the asset management area, but you might not necessarily become the winner because the incumbents have the scale, have the assets, have the client. If they imitate you, they can much more easily bring those businesses to scale at much lower acquisition cost.

We are used to see new entrance disrupting and actually become the dominant player in industries. That is less common in financial services, and that is one important factor why this doesn't happen.

Derek van Bever: Interesting. I wanted to ask you, Luis, in your publishing and in your observation of the industry, you've looked deeply at disruptors, you've looked deeply at incumbents and incumbent response. Even Vanguard, which started life as a disruptor, is in some ways an incumbent, positioned as an incumbent here. Do you have a sense on what separates winners from losers? Would you be betting on the incumbents to come back and respond strongly, or on the disruptors to come up underneath and to continue to improve their models and their fortunes?

Luis Viceira: Incumbents have been quick to react and to develop their new similar services and products. One example is the service that you sited by Vanguard. They brought that business up to scale. I think they have north of $100 billion in assets today, having started it like three or four years ago. While these other robo-advisors that have been there much much longer, they have only a fraction of the assets and a fraction of the scale. There is a point at which you acquire enough scale as a new entrant that allows you to survive but maybe not to grow as quickly as you could and achieve a scale that would allow you to even lower your cost.

And then coming in the meantime has been able to catch up with you and become much bigger than you, and from that perspective, also more efficient from that cost perspective. So a lot of these things that happen in this industry is these new entrants and them being acquired by incumbents. They develop the brand, they develop the trust. The brand in a sense of meaning technology that works. The incumbent might have a brand that is not recognized for that. And an easy way for them is actually to acquire the new entrant, adopt the brand, try to bring that brand into their own brand, and then because they had already the scale, they have the cheap acquisition cost of new clients, then bring that business up to scale.

And we have had many many examples of that happening in this industry. And I would not be surprised to see more acquisitions coming in the robo-advisor business. It's also an interesting hypothesis whether maybe the acquiring firms might not be actually asset management firms. I wrote an article that suggested maybe one potential acquirer of these new entrants could be big tech firms interested in entering financial services. I [inaudible 00:35:13] Amazon or Facebook or Google, where they don't have a brand in managing assets, they do have a brand in technology, acquiring some of these new entrants. To acquire this brand of being able to invest money for the long run at a low cost.

Many of these firms, data analytics is very important for them and certainly these firms do have the means and the power to enhance that aspect of these firms. I think we haven't seen more of that because of the highly regulatory nature of this business. Amazon getting big time into financial services or Apple doing that, both have maybe implications for them in terms of regulatory issues that they might find too discouraging at the moment. And preventing them from doing more of that. But that's something we might see in the future actually.

Derek van Bever: You did an interview with Forbes India a couple of years ago when you talked about the important capabilities here are low cost, efficient customer acquisition, steady investment in technology, and high quality UX. Wow, putting Amazon's name into this frame, it's almost tailor made for the capabilities they might bring to this, and regulation is an area we'll have to watch very closely. David, how do you and your peers ... I don't mean to ask a sensitive question. I don't want you to talk future strategy. But how do you and your peers think about this ongoing sort of tussle, battle, face-off with the incumbents? Do you see clear runways ahead or is that notion of combination something that seems within your frame of reference?

David Snider: Well, I think there are three categories of fintech businesses. There are those that are actually seeking to serve large banks, and SigFig is one robo that actually pivoted to serving larger institutions with that offering in a more white label way. You have companies that are, like most of the robos that we've mentioned so far, focused on being a pure play, independent consumer business, and then you've got some that are serving the longer tail, independent advisors, others, and they have a consumer angle like what we have done.

So I think you're already seeing a bifurcation of that. What's interesting in the market among the consumer ones is that financial services is complex, so some of the businesses that look the most consumer pure play like a Robin Hood are actually monetizing through the trade execution and the backend and noticing some of the quirky nature of financial service flows. So I think it's often more complicated to sort of see just from the outside the strategies of some of the fintech firms and how they're making money and whether they see themselves as being dependent on, in competition with, or just a potential acquisition target for the largest incumbent in the market.

Derek van Bever: Interesting. Maybe one last question for both of you. Luis, our listeners, who are by and large alums of the school, are looking at this sector either potentially as investors or as clients, I guess. Do you have any advice? Are there any great opportunities out there other than Harness Wealth that you might suggest that our alums look at? Are there companies you're particularly impressed with or movements that you see that intrigue you the most?

Luis Viceira: That is always one question I tell my students to consider all the time. And we have seen that very clearly with what's happening with the Covid crisis and Robin Hood and all these millennials that are coming. And unfortunately, the news yesterday about this young kid of 20 year old committing suicide, which is unique to think as an investor. Whether the firm that is trying to offer me a service, are they catering to my real needs as an investor or are they catering to my biases as an investor.

There are two ways, unfortunately, to make money in this industry. One is servicing investors at their needs, at the lowest cost possible. And the other one, unfortunately, and there's the whole field as we know in academia but also with huge implications for practice, which is behavioral finance. We all have, when it comes to investing, and no one is free from that. No one in this conversation, no one whether a professional or a retail investor, is free from biases that cannot lead us to invest in ways that might not be the best and more sound way for us to invest to build wealth for the long run.

Like eating too many chocolate bars, we are deeply attracted to that. And there are firms there that are offering that kind of thing. And you need to be able to step out and think about is this service really helping me or is this service trying to make a fee of specific psychological bias I might have as an investor. Or trying to take advantage of maybe my ignorance. So these are big questions that each one of us need to ask individually introspectively when we are looking at any kind of financial services firms that is claiming to help us to save for the long run. Not all of them have decided to do that.

Derek van Bever: David, I guess you've tried through the curation of the professionals that you recommend as well as through the whole focus on helping people through difficult moments. You've tried to get on the right side of that help versus bias divide that Luis mentions. If our listeners are thinking I wonder if there's someone that Harness could introduce me to that I could trust, what's the next step that you might recommend for a listener to the podcast who wants to see am I the right kind of prospect for this service?

David Snider: Thank you. Yeah, I would encourage anyone interested to visit our website at Harnesswealth.com. And since this is a podcast for other HBS alums, I'm also happy to have people email me directly at David@harnesswealth.com, especially if they have feedback on the experience or other questions. We're early on, so I try to spend a good chunk of time talking directly with our clients to make sure that I have a good and we have a good sense of their needs as we build the roadmap into the future.

Derek van Bever: Great. Thank you. I want to thank you both. In my conversations with you before this podcast, I really have been struck by your shared confidence in the power of technology to help us make better decisions, to be safer in charting our financial futures, as well as making sure that as you work and study this industry, you're alive to the kinds of pitfalls that people can fall into and helping them as best you can to avoid those. So to both of you, thank you very much. And to all of you out there, if this conversation today helps you to make better decisions, then we have achieved our fondest objective. Thank you all, and goodbye.

Clay Christensen: Thank you for listening to us at Disruptive Voice. If you like our show and want to learn more, please visit us at our website or leave us a review on iTunes. Until next time, good luck, everybody.