Think It’s Okay Not to Source Your Facts?

The penalties for being wrong or lazy get steeper every day

 We’re all super-busy these days. But as fiduciaries and trusted advisors, you don’t get a free pass when it comes to citing facts and statistics in your bylined articles, blog posts, client newsletters and social media posts.

I can’t tell you how many advisors have written the following: “Studies show 60% of Americans don’t have an estate plan.” That’s a terrible state of affairs in the U.S. But where did you get that number? What study? Did you do your own survey? Did you read it somewhere? Did someone mention it at a conference you attended? If you can’t back up a fact or stat, then find the original source or don’t mention it.

When you fudge it, you’re not only damaging your credibility, but you could be facing serious legal, regulatory, and professional consequences. For SEC-registered investment advisers, public writings, blog posts, and newsletters count as marketing materials. Rule 206(4)-1) strictly bans untrue statements, unsubstantiated material facts, and misleading inferences. Even if you’re not registered with the SEC, you owe it to your clients, prospects, strategic partners and followers to substantiate the facts and claims you make in your public-facing content.

Whether your material is being reviewed by your compliance department or an outside editor where you’re trying to get published, these eagle-eyed reviewers are increasingly under pressure to verify facts and matters of attribution before approving the material. Increasingly they’re using AI detection software to review all submissions that come across their desks. If you get flagged, you might not get another chance with them.

Real-world examples

Here are some of the most common errors we see when it comes to misattribution:

Citing a prestigious outlet (that wasn’t the source). When it comes to national divorce rates (67% of second marriages and 73% of third marriages), we’ve seen a number or advisors and estate planners cite this Psychology Today article (5 Risks for People Marrying a Second or Third Time) as the source. Those alarming stats are right in the first paragraph of the aforementioned article, but Psychology Today didn’t say where it got the data. The article just happens to appear near the top of Google search results for “divorce rates 2^nd and 3^rd marriages.” Don’t be lazy. Be accurate.

This USA Today article is also widely cited as the source of those sobering divorce statistics on second and third marriages. But USA Today didn’t do the research, either. To its credit, USA Today linked out to an external source, but it was to the general divorce.com site which has dozens upon dozens or random statistics on divorce. If you look closely, divorce.com tells you:
“A prevalent myth about divorce rates in the U.S. suggests that 50% of first marriages, 67% of second marriages, and 73% of third marriages end in divorce. However, these statistics are not based on any verifiable data, and their origins are untraceable, as highlighted in Shaunti Feldhahn's book The Good News About Marriage.”

Divorce.com continues: “This misleading information has been widely quoted, including in reputable sources like Psychology Today and Forbes. It is important to acknowledge that these figures are inaccurate and should not be perpetuated.”

Ouch!

Fishing expedition. Another way we’ve seen advisors play fast and loose with sources is just taking the reader to the home page of a massive general government website, hoping the reader gets too discouraged to keep digging. For instance, one client wrote: “the birth rate for U.S. women aged 40–44 rose to 12.8 births per 1,000 women (up 1% from 12.7 in 2024).” That data is from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Census Bureau. But just taking readers to cdc.gov or census.gov could take hours to verify. Instead, we instructed our client to include the correct link to: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db571.htm.

I know you’re laughing, but we had another wealth advisor client who would answer every question we asked about sources by having his assistance send us half a dozen PDF reports, each 100-plus pages in length and say: “It’s from one of these reports.” Yeah, thanks for nothing!

End run. As our client Randy Fox wrote in Wealth Management Magazine recently, “Roughly 6 million small and medium-sized businesses are expected to change hands over the next decade.” Randy’s article and the 6 million statistic got picked up by a number of blogs published by financial advisors and estate planning firms. Many did not attribute that source to anyone, or they incorrectly cited Randy or Wealth Management magazine as the source of the 6 million stats. Instead, as correctly stated in Randy’s article, The McKinsey Institute for Economic Mobility Study was the correct source of the 6 million number.

End run #2: Here’s a paragraph from a book manuscript a prospect sent to us for review:

“Only 16% of people write down their goals. Those who write down the goals are 42% more likely to achieve them.”

The stats he cited sounded very reasonable. But when we asked where he got them, he hesitated before admitted: “I forget. I read it somewhere.” That’s not good enough. Then he admitted he used AI to help him draft the manuscript “and it always gives me sources,” he assured us. So, when we asked to see the sources AI came up with, he gave us a link to this blog post on LinkedIn. Yes, the post mentioned the 42% statistic, but it didn’t cite where it came from.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

A week later, our client sheepishly came back to us and said the missing source was CNBC because he heard it on a news report they did. To their credit, CNBC correctly cited Dr. Gail Matthews, a psychology professor at Dominican University of California, as the source of the 42% statistic. But alas the CNBC link was broken, and it pointed to a general bio page for Dr. Matthews, not to the actual research containing the 42% statistic. As mentioned above, a news report in well-respected mainstream media is typically not the source; it’s just a conduit.

Don’t cite sources from AI without checking

Academic research conducted by Middle Tennessee State University, Arizona State University and Duke University found that AI tools sometimes cite articles by an author who usually writes about your topic. AI might even identify a journal that published on your topic, but the title, pages numbers, and dates are completely fictional, according to the aforementioned academic studies. AI’s web search capabilities have improved since those studies were done, but they’re still not reliable for identifying actual sources, as the Duke study concluded. “Depending on the topic and availability of data it has on that topic, it may summarize the wrong source or provide inaccurate summaries of specific articles, sometimes making up details and conclusions,” Duke researchers added.

Conclusion

When it comes to sourcing matters of fact and attribution, take the time to get it right or ping me any time if you need help. Your reputation is too important to play fast and loose with the facts.

What are you and your colleagues doing to improve your fact checking and research capabilities? I’d love to hear from you and why.

#businesscommunication, #practicemanagement, #factcheck, #AIhallucination

True Thought Leadership Is About Giving Away Meaningful Insights

The term “thought leadership” is one of the most misunderstood concepts in professional service because everyone wants to be one, and few know what it really means. More precisely, everyone wants to be a thought leader without putting the work into it as artificial intelligence, marketing automation and other thinking shortcuts tempt the time-pressed professional.

Everyone wants to be published, speak at prestigious gatherings, or be a guest on influential podcasts that impact the way an industry thinks or behaves. But buying your way onto the podium does not make you a thought leader, nor does having your byline included in a publication’s “advisory council.”

AI cannot make you a thought leader either because it only repeats existing consensus and lacks personal experience, original opinions, and lived judgment. AI reconstitutes what is already on the internet; it cannot invent a fresh point of view or a true breakthrough or question conventional wisdom. AI text may sounds polished, but it relies on clichés, abstractions, excessive em-dashes -- and predictable phrasing that readers easily spot as synthetic. Using AI and other technology crutches too often, will also cause your critical thinking muscles to atrophy.

Randy Shattuck, founder of The Shattuck Group, a management consulting and coaching firm that works closely with mid-size financial advisory firms told me that when he started working with a professional service firm, it had “zero thought leadership.” This meant that for every prospect referred to them, they had to build credibility and create distinction while trying to win their business too. “That was a tall task,” recalled Shattuck, “and their win-results showed it.”

But after committing to producing consistent thought leadership materials Shattuck said everything changed. “The firm’s clients used their thought leadership materials as the starting point of the referral process, often sending the prospect an article from one’s of the firm’s advisors which essentially said: ‘this is why you should work with this advisor’” explained Shattuck. “Their thought leadership built credibility before the advisor ever got a chance to talk to the prospect. Their win-results tripled and fee sensitivity dropped through the floor,” he added.

Your hidden gold mine

Most financial advisory firms are sitting on a gold mine and they don’t know it. According to Shattuck, that gold mine is called the collective wisdom and experience of your top people. Your top people are creden­tialed, qualified and experienced. “That expe­rience gets pressed into service with every new client AFTER they engage,” said Shattuck. “But what if that experience could be pressed into service BEFORE you even talk to a prospect? What if that experience could make you so dis­tinct that prospects know exactly why they should work with you—before you even talk to them? How would that change things for your organization?” asked Shattuck.

Real world example

This is what can happen if you commit to thought leadership and to sharing great ideas. For example, in the early stages of working with an RIA firm, Shattuck collaborated with a top ad­visor on an article titled “The Financial Impact of Divorce.” That article demonstrated why the advisor was a thoughtful and sensitive person. It was not all that well received at first. But over time, Shattuck said that article became one of the most popu­lar in a library of more than 100 articles. Ten years later, that article was still bringing great new prospects to his door. “When they came through that door, they didn’t ask him about his credentials or fees. They got right down to business about what was on their mind, expressing trust in him from the start,” explained Shattuck.

For you and your firm to become recog­nized thought leaders, Shattuck recommends hiring a seasoned expert to guide your efforts, not relying on in-house staff or AI. There are three reasons you should do this”

1. Creating though leadership content requires a bit of time and energy from your top people. You need to see an ROI on that time. Novices probably cannot achieve this for you.

2. The process isn’t intuitive. You don’t want to work with someone who is making up their process on the fly. You need someone who can give you the best results from the least amount of time of your top people.

3. Thought leadership content is ulti­mately a form of persuasive writing and that’s something most CPAs, wealth managers and investment advisors struggle with. “This is its own unique art form and it requires a very different sensibility,” cautioned Shattuck. “Your top people should absolutely be the ones coming up with the ideas for your thought leadership content. But they shouldn’t be tasked with the actual writing,” he noted.

Let a persuasive writing pro handle the heavy lifting and have your top people do the final tweaking and review. Randy’s latest eBook (8 Strategies to Create Distinction for Advisor Firms) has more about ideation and thought leadership content process.

#FinancialAdvisors #WealthManagement #ClientTrust #ThoughtLeadership, #Differentiation, #RandyShattuck

The One Thing That Makes Prospects Choose You Over Other Advisors

If a prospect is deciding whether to choose you or another financial advisor who is just as credentialed, experienced and geographically convenient as you are, why would they pick you? Most financial advisors still can’t answer this basic question!

 My friend Randy Shattuck, founder of The Shattuck Group told me that’s because most high-net-worth (HNW) individuals ask friends and family or other HNW people for a referral to a financial advisor, CPA or estate planner. That process yields somewhere between three to four professionals advisors that they’ll interview. Then they have to pick. “This is where the rubber meets the road,” explained Shuttuck, who has advised hundreds of midsize professional service firms on their marketing and growth strategies. “In far too many instances, the client can’t honestly can’t why they’ll pick advisor A over advisor B,” he added.

Let’s look at it from the prospective client’s perspective:

• Are both advisors experienced, with more than 10 years of service? Yes.

• Are both registered, licensed and in good standing with their governing body? Yes.

• Do both advisors have advanced degrees and certifications in their field? Yes.

• Do both advisors serve HNW families and successful business owners? Yes.

• Do both advisors adhere to the fiduciary standard? Yes.

• Do both advisors come from credible companies or firms? Yes.

• Do both advisors seem trustworthy and honest? Yes.

• Are both advisors likable, with good interpersonal skills? Yes.

“If we look at this from the prospective client’s point of view, there is almost

no distinction between advisor A and advisor B,” continued Shattuck. “They can’t tell the difference. But advisors who practice intentional distinction almost never face these questions.”

If you want to become the go-to advisor, Shattuck said you need to commit to telling your personal story which is a “unique narrative based on your life experience, told in your own voice,” that no one else can copy or share.

“For many of us, our most important memories from childhood are rooted in story time,” explained Shattuck. “We cannot resist stories. They are intoxicating, if they are good stories and told with a certain flair. One of the best reasons to tell stories is because they immediately put you in a different mindset with prospects,” continued Shattuck. “Most prospects analyze your credentials, degrees and years of experience. But stories call upon them to feel your ability to be empathetic and fully present with them. That’s a very different experience indeed,” asserted Shattuck.

 

5 reasons why storytelling matters

1. No one else has your story. That automatically makes you distinct.

2. A personal story creates affinity and trust with prospects faster and more effectively than any other vehicle. “Storytelling goes beyond the analytical mind and enters right into the heart of the matter,” said Shattuck.

3. Affluent people make decisions based on emotion and use logic to justify it. Sometimes, a person cannot even tell you why they like advisor A over B. “But their gut tells them that advisor A is a better fit for them,” explained Shattuck. “Storytelling taps into those beneath-the-surface emotions that we all carry but are not necessarily aware of with our conscious mind.”

4. If you tell a great story, your unique personality comes through. “At the end of the day, a prospect is choosing you as a person as much as a financial advisor,” said Shattuck. “For a client to realize the benefits of your counsel, they need to trust you and take action on your advice.”

5. An effective personal story fosters trust in you and that usually leads to a client “who resists less and follows your advice more readily,” concluded Shattuck.

Components of a great personal story?

According to Shattuck, a great story has a beginning, a middle and an end. It is also revelatory about of your character. “One of the best ways I’ve seen this achieved is by telling a story of adversity that a family member overcame through perseverance,” he noted.

Conclusion

Finally, develop your story with different lengths say, 15 minutes, five minutes, one minute, even a 15-second version for the proverbial “elevator pitch.” There will be a time and place for each format. Learn to read the room and always be ready for the right version in the right situation. Randy’s latest eBook has eight great strategies for distinguishing yourself in a crowded marketplace.

 

#FinancialAdvisors #WealthManagement #ClientTrust #Storytelling, #Differentiation

The Dog Days of August Already Came and Went

According to the calendar, we’re less than half-way through the hazy, lazy dog days of August. Traditionally it’s “Out of the Office” (OOO) season when everyone is on vacation, packing to go, or still reliving the great time they had at the beach, sailing on the lake, or traveling abroad.

But if you think you can take the entire take the entire month off like the Europeans do, or just “pop” into the office to catch up on things in your flip flops, reflect on the year to date, and rest up for the post-Labor Day whirlwind of pent-up decision-making and the Q4 budget grind, think again.

The pace of technological change and the uncertainty of our economy, interest rates and geopolitical risk means things are simply moving much faster than they used to. So has day-to-day life.

Sure, things are a little slower for everyone in August, but that’s when you’re best prospects have some time to breathe, too. Chance are, they’re ready to pull the trigger on the contract or engagement letter you sent them long ago. How many OOO messages from you will they tolerate before moving to plan B?

I’m not suggesting that your Holiday card should be at the printer already, but you better be ready to hit the ground running well before Labor Day.

“I don’t view August as a month to write off while waiting for Labor Day,” said Dan McMahon, founder of Integrated Growth Advisors. “There’s still a third of the year in front of us. It can be a great time to think, make the decision you’ve been putting off, and get positioned for what comes next. Besides, my wife is a teacher, and school is already back in session in my home state of South Carolina. The calendar tells me it’s still summer, but it doesn’t feel like summer anymore.”

Forget the five-day work week

But that “third of the year” is not as much time as it appears to be. For starters, a normal five-day work week is the exception not the rule this time of year. We have 16 weeks (approximately 80 workdays) left to work with, but Labor Day comes late this year (September 7^th), and official three-day national holidays have become four- and five-day events these days. So there go the weeks when Columbus Day and Veterans Day roll around. Then you have the Jewish Holidays also in September, Thanksgiving in November and of course, Christmas and Chanukah. That gets us down to six or seven “normal” workweeks, excluding any sick days and travel days you have on your calendar.

That’s doesn’t leave much time for anything more than getting through the week/month/quarter, does it?

So, take the time now to make some big decisions you’ve been putting off – a key hire, website redesign, CRM upgrade, new service line, writing a book – and start getting the kinks out before the phone starts ringing off the hook after Labor Day.

I don’t have any scientific evidence to back this up, but I’d say, any heavy lifting you do in August is worth 5x the effort of the same lift done in September through December. It’s hay in the barn. Once the harvested hay is safely stored under a roof, it is protected from weather damage, meaning the critical labor is done and you can trust the results

Slowing down to speed up

"Slow down to speed up" means taking a deliberate pause to plan, organize, or fix fundamentals so you can work much faster and smoother later. Rushing without preparation often leads to costly mistakes and delays, whereas a short investment in clarity saves massive amounts of time down the road.

*** Writing stuck? Here’s how to get through the August doldrums?

“Don’t let ‘after Labor Day’ become a parking lot for decisions you already know you need to make,” advised McMahon. “August may be slower, but it doesn’t have to be lost.”

Ping me any time. I’m happy to help.

This vs. That and Why You Should Care

 

Here’s something that might be quietly undermining your credibility as a thought influencer without you even realizing it. I admit, I sometimes get tripped myself.

I’m talking about those seemingly harmless words: “this” and “that.” Not to bring back painful memories of high school English, but most of you are in the financial world. Knowing the difference between "this" and "that" is vital for preventing dangerous ambiguity, clarifying complex financial concepts, and for maintaining regulatory compliance. Even slight phrasing errors can confuse investors and your clients, skew data interpretations, or violate strict SEC "plain English" guidelines

Let’s take a look at some of the most common misuses of this and that and simply fixes I try to use to keep them straight.

EXAMPLE 1. Vague reference (the most common problem)

UNCLEAR: "Revenue declined, operating costs rose, and the dividend was cut. This impacted shareholder confidence."

PROBLEM: "This" floats around without a clear antecedent. “This” could refer to revenue, operating costs or dividends.

BETTER: "The combination of declining revenue, rising costs, and a dividend cut impacted shareholder confidence."

=======================================================================

EXAMPLE 2. "This" used as a noun when it should modify one

UNCLEAR: "The Fed raised rates by 50 basis points. This caused bond prices to fall."

BETTER: "The Fed raised rates by 50 basis points. This hike caused bond prices to fall."

EXPLANATION: Adding the noun ("hike") anchors "this" and makes the sentence easier to scan quickly — important in financial prose where precision matters.

=======================================================================

EXAMPLE 3. Inconsistent distance signaling

UNLCEAR: "Refer to the balance sheet above. That figure includes deferred tax liabilities."

BETTER: "Refer to the balance sheet above. This figure includes deferred tax liabilities."

EXPLANATION: "That" implies distance or separation; "this" implies the thing is right at hand. Since the reader is being directed to the figure, "this" is more accurate.

=======================================================================

EXAMPLE 4. Dropping the word "That" incorrectly in subordinate clauses

UNLCEAR: "The auditors confirmed that the reserves were understated."

BETTER: "The auditors confirmed that the reserves were understated."

Dropping "that" is fine in casual speech, but in financial writing — where the difference between confirming something happened vs. confirming a specific claim can have legal weight — including "that" removes ambiguity.

=======================================================================

EXAMPLE 5. Stacking "this" across paragraphs

UNCLEAR: "Margins compressed in Q3. This was due to input costs. This led management to revise guidance. This concerned analysts."

BETTER: "Margin compression from rising input costs prompted a guidance revision and raised concerns among analysts."

EXPLANATION: Each "this" points back to a different thing, forcing the reader to mentally track a chain — a real problem in earnings reports or analyst notes.

=======================================================================

Conclusion

Whenever you use "this" or "that," ask yourself whether a reader skimming at speed might misidentify what “this” or “that” refers to. If so, either add a noun or rewrite the sentence. Spending a few extra minutes to be crystal clear could save you hours of headaches down the road.

Do you have a good system for keeping “this” and “that” straight? I love to hear more.

 

What AI Thinks About AI for Professional Writing

 

As with so many parts of modern life, artificial intelligence (AI) is disrupting professions that rely on the written word. Some people think it’s amazing. Some think it’s overhyped. And some think it’s a dangerous job killer that will reduce humans’ ability to think and communicate for themselves.

I’m not sure where I stand yet, but I was wondering the other day what AI itself thinks about using AI for professional writing, editing and research. Like any good journalist, I reached out to multiple sources for comment. Here’s what I learned from the major AI platforms I consulted that use large language models (LLMs).

ChatGPT and Perplexity kind of hemmed and hawed. Eventually I got tired of waiting for them to formulate a response while “still thinking and processing.” Gemini, sort of hid behind the Google Chrome search results. But Claude to its credit answered my questions swiftly and confidently, but not before telling me: “Hank, the irony of your request has not been lost on me.”

According to Claude: “AI writing tools have swept into newsrooms, law firms, academic institutions, and corporate communications departments with remarkable speed. The pitch is seductive: faster drafts, fewer bottlenecks, lower costs.” No surprise there, but then Claude confided: “For professional writing — where accuracy, credibility, and sourcing are non-negotiable — AI tools introduce a set of risks that should give any serious writer or editor pause.”

Hmmm.

Unprompted by me, Claude then addressed the tendency of AI to come up with make-believe-sources.

The Hallucination Problem

“The most damaging flaw of LLMs in professional writing contexts is what researchers and engineers call ‘hallucination,’” asserted Claude. “It’s the tendency of AI systems to generate false information with complete confidence. This isn't a bug that will be patched in the next update. It is, to a significant degree, structural,” said Claude.

If you’re in a situation or profession that expects you to document the sources for your work, which should give you pause.

As Claude explained during our interview, “language models work by predicting statistically likely sequences of text based on training data. They do not ‘know’ facts the way a database stores records. When asked to produce a citation — a journal article, a court case, a news report — the model generates text that looks like a citation. It follows the correct format, includes plausible author names, and references a real-sounding journal. But the underlying article may not exist at all,” Claude noted.

Personally, I’ve run into the source fabrication problem often and so have many of our clients.

When I asked Claude for an example of AI hallucination, it shared the following story: “This phenomenon gained widespread public attention in 2023 when a New York attorney, Steven Schwartz, submitted a legal brief that cited multiple court cases generated by ChatGPT — none of which were real. The judge was not amused,” noted Claude. “Schwartz faced sanctions, and the case became a widely cited cautionary tale about the dangers of using generative AI in professional legal contexts,” Claude added.

Why Citations Are Especially Vulnerable

According to Claude, “citation requires something AI fundamentally lacks: a reliable, verifiable link between a claim and a specific, retrievable source.” A human researcher, Claude said, “finds a source, reads it, and records it. The citation is downstream of an actual act of retrieval and comprehension. By contrast, AI generates a citation because citations are a pattern that appears in its training data. [AI] has learned that academic sentences tend to be followed by parenthetical author-year references, that legal briefs cite specific case names and dockets, and that journalism includes attributed quotes. So, it produces those patterns — whether or not the underlying source exists.”

To me, it’s amazing the human programmers have figured out a way to mimic academic, legal and journalistic writing style, but you can see how dangerous it can be when mis-used.

As Claude continued: “Even worse Hank, when AI tools do have access to real sources (through retrieval-augmented generation or web search), they can still misrepresent them — paraphrasing inaccurately, attributing quotes to the wrong person, or presenting a source's argument as the opposite of what it actually says.”

Personally, I’ve frequently been frustrated by inaccurate paraphrasing and misattribution of quotes, and it’s something you should double check before you go live with any material AI has generated for you.

The Problem of Confident Vagueness

If you’re still reading this post, or asking your AI assistant to do so, I thank you for your time.

As Claude noted: “Professional writing demands precision. A medical writer cannot say a drug ‘significantly reduces symptoms’ without citing a specific study with a specific patient population and outcome measure,” Claude said. “An investigative journalist cannot attribute a claim to ‘experts’ without naming them. AI prose tends toward what might be called confident vagueness — it sounds authoritative while eliding the specific details that give professional writing its credibility and accountability,” Claude noted.

Agreed. We’re constantly calling out our clients on that.

“This is partly why AI-generated text often passes a casual read but falls apart under editorial scrutiny,” admitted Claude. “The sentences are grammatical, the tone is appropriate, the structure is sound — but when a fact-checker goes to verify the third paragraph, the sources either don't exist or don't say what the text claims.”

In my experience, this is sadly all too accurate.

Accountability

“Beyond sourcing,” continued Claude, “professional writing carries the voice, judgment, and accountability of a named author. A byline is not merely a formality — it represents a human being who can be questioned, who has a reputation at stake, and who made deliberate choices about what to include and what to leave out. AI-generated content erodes that accountability layer entirely,” asserted Claude.

“There is also the question of what gets left out. AI models trained on existing text will reproduce the emphases, omissions, and blind spots of that text,” said Claude. “A professional writer working a beat develops the judgment to know what the data doesn't show, who hasn't been heard from, and what a source has an interest in saying. AI has no such judgment — it optimizes for plausibility, not truth,” stated Claude.

A Tool, But Not a Replacement for Professional Judgment

“None of this means AI has no place in a writer's workflow,” asserted Claude. “Brainstorming, structural outlining, rough drafting, and editing assistance are areas where the stakes of a fabricated citation are low and the efficiency gains are real. But for any writing where sourcing, accuracy, and accountability matter — journalism, legal writing, academic research, medical communication — AI should be treated as a starting point at best, and a liability at worst.”

Even Claude concedes: “The professional writer's value lies precisely in what AI cannot reliably do: find real sources, read them carefully, represent them accurately, and stake their name on the result.”

More tools and resources related to this post can be found on our website.

Conclusion

AI is great for getting started, especially when you’re just staring at a blank screen and can’t get out of first gear. It can be a great help when it comes to brainstorming, structural outlining, rough drafting, and editing assistance. But turning to your work over to AI blindly is not just lazy; it can irreparably damage your reputation and your firm’s.

March Madness and Investing: Why Behavioral Biases Keep Derailing Us

Whether your Final Four picks include Blue Chip mega-caps (Duke, Michigan and Kentucky), or low-cap growth stocks (High Point, Cal Baptist and Prairie View A&M) behavioral biases are on full display when tens of millions of Americans fill out their NCAA men’s basketball tournament brackets.

March Madness is not just a three-week basketball-palooza. It is a classic example of the cognitive biases that derail investors year after year.  Here are four of the most egregious ones:

1. Overconfidence Bias

Ask anyone why they picked a certain team to go deep in the tournament and you will get a confident, well-reasoned answer. They watched three games this season. They read a column about the point guard. Their cousin went to that school. The coach is hot right now. They did well last year.

This is overconfidence bias in its purest form — the tendency to overestimate the accuracy of our predictions based on thin or anecdotal evidence. Behavioral economists have documented this bias extensively. Behavioral psychologist, Daniel Kahneman, described how people consistently overestimate the precision of their forecasts, especially in complex systems with many interacting variables.

Basketball, like markets, is exactly that kind of system. A star player rolls his ankle in warmups. An underdog catches fire from three. A referee misses a call. The outcome is partly skill and partly chaos — and yet tens of millions of people fill out brackets with supreme conviction. Yet no one has ever predicted all 67 games correctly in the same year. In fact, out of 36 million brackets completed on the major online sites in the 2026, NOT ONE bracket remained perfect by  the 44^th game of the 67 game tournament. And there are still four rounds to go.

Investors do the same thing. We read a few earnings reports, catch a segment on financial television, and proceed to make high conviction bets on individual stocks. We forget that we are competing against professionals who do this 12 hours a day with resources and computing power we cannot imagine. The bracket reminds us: confidence and competence are not the same thing.

For many years, Warren Buffett offered $1 billion to anyone who could pick a perfect NCAA bracket and never once paid up. Now Kalshi, the prediction market site is made the same $1 billion offer. They already know they won’t have to pay up in 2026.

2. Recency Bias: Why Last Year's Champion Gets Too Much Love

In bracket psychology, recent events loom far larger than a full body of evidence would justify. The defending champion University of Florida Gators were a No.1 seed in this year’s tournament and a heavy favorite to make the Final Four. Instead, they got knocked out by No.9 seed, University of Iowa in only the second round. University of Nebraska started the season 20-0 and then dropped seven of their last 13 games heading into the post-season. They fell to a No.4 seed and millions of bracketeers overlooked them as a contender. Yet here are the Huskers in the Sweet 16 having just knocked off Vanderbilt, champions of the highly competitive Southeastern Conference.

Recency bias is equally destructive in investing. When markets are rising, investors pile in, assuming the good times will last indefinitely. When they correct, panic selling takes over. We let the last six months of data override twenty years of historical context.

The data on this is sobering. Dalbar's annual Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior consistently shows that average investors dramatically underperform the indices they invest in — not because the funds are bad, but because investors buy high and sell low, chasing recent performance. They are filling out their financial brackets based on last week's box scores.

3. Confirmation Bias: Rooting for Your Pick to Be Right

Once you have committed to a bracket pick, something strange happens. You start finding evidence that supports it everywhere. TV analyst Charles Barkley calls your team a “sleeper to watch” and it feels like vindication. But when pundit Seth Greenberg questions them, you instantly dismiss his take on your team, even if his argument is stronger. You are no longer evaluating information objectively — you are prosecuting a case for your predetermined conclusion.

Confirmation bias is one of the most dangerous land mines in investing. Once we own a stock, we unconsciously filter news through the lens of ownership. Good earnings confirm our genius. Bad news gets rationalized as temporary. We stop asking "should I own this?" and start asking "why should I continue to own this?" — a subtle but devastating shift.

Before you finalize a bracket pick, read the case for the other team. Before you double down on a position, write out a serious bear case. The goal is not pessimism — it is intellectual honesty.

4. Loss Aversion

Research suggests most people feel the pain of the loss roughly twice as intensely as the joy of a gain. Kahneman called this “loss aversion,” and he showed it is hardwired into our brains from birth.

In March Madness, loss aversion drives people to pick favorites relentlessly, even when the expected value of an upset pick is higher. We protect our bracket's survival rather than optimizing for winning the pool. We anchor to our initial picks long after they should be reconsidered.

For investors, loss aversion leads to holding losing stocks far too long — hoping to "get back to breakeven" — and selling winners prematurely to lock in gains. Both behaviors sacrifice expected returns in service of emotional comfort. The result is a portfolio shaped more by feelings than by fundamentals.

How March Madness Can Make Us Better Investors

The most successful bracket players — and investors — share a few key traits.

1. They diversify their picks rather than over-concentrating on one narrative.

2. They respect base rates: historically, No. 1 seeds win the national championship more often than all other seeds combined. They manage their downside and stay in the game long enough for their process to pay off.

3. They also know when to trust the structure over the story. The tournament bracket is a process. A well-constructed investment policy statement is a process. Both exist to protect us from ourselves in high-emotion moments.

Before you submit your next bracket or make your next investment decision ask yourself: ”Am I making this pick because the data supports it, or because I watched them play two weeks ago and they outplayed their conference rivals with a better record? Am I buying this stock because I have a thesis, or because everyone on my feed is talking about it?”

Conclusion

March Madness lasts three weeks. The behavioral biases it exposes can last a lifetime. The court just makes it more obvious than a brokerage account does.

#Marchmadness, #NCAAbasketball, #behavioralbias, #investing

Is It Better to Be Published or Quoted?

 

P.T. Barnum, the iconic 19^th century showman liked to say: “All publicity is good publicity.”

That may be true. But I can’t tell you how many financial professionals contact us wanting to do “PR” for them. “We have such a great XYZ, but no one has heard of us,” they lament, assuming media outlets should be breaking down the door to do stories about them.

In today’s era of shrinking newsrooms, that kind of “earned media” coverage is harder and harder to do. It’s simple math. Newsrooms are shrinking at even the best newspapers, magazines and broadcast outlets. The editors and reporters who remain are completely overloaded and don’t have time for coffee, lunch, golf or 15-minute meet-and-greets just to get to know you. They’re under constant pressure to meet tight deadlines with timely, relevant content that will keep the audience engaged and advertisers happy.

And now thanks to crowdsourced pitching services like Qwoted, Source Bottle and HARO (Help a Reporter Out), journalists are receiving more pitches than ever for fewer and fewer coverage opportunities.

That’s why we recommend writing authoritative bylined columns for reputable media outlets cover your industry.

Here are some of the advantages of bylined columns over simply being quoted:

• Recognition and Authority: Publishing establishes you as an expert in your field, whereas a quote often places the spotlight on the person who cited you.
  
  
• Control of the narrative: When you publish a bylined article, you control the narrative. When you’re simply quoted in an interview, your comments are just there to fill in the blanks in the reporter’s story – and there’s always the danger of being misquoted or being taken out of context.
  
  
• Career Advancement: Peer-reviewed publications directly lead to paid speaking gigs, new clients, podcast guest appearances, job opportunities, and consulting opportunities.
  
  
• Professional Development: The process of publishing improves writing and critical thinking skills, forcing the consolidation of complex ideas. After a few articles, you’re presentations and “elevator pitches” will get even better.
  
  
• Greater Impact: A published work allows others to build upon your findings, contributing to the broader development of a field.
  
  
• Validation: Being published means a publisher or reviewers validated the work's quality and value. That’s what cements your status as a bona fide thought leader.
  
  
•  Shelf life. Many of the specialized media outlets we work with build an archive landing page with all of your bylined columns listed, as well as your headshot and professional bio. Most media outlets keep the articles on their archive pages live for several years. You won’t get an archive page just being a source.

 
But I already have a good journalist relationship

If you can build a good relationship with a top journalist who covers your industry or geographic area, that’s great. Those relationships can be an invaluable source of earned media coverage, and you’ll eventually be considered a thought leader. You’ll likely get quoted several times per year – usually on short notice – for stories they’re working on. Just know that you can’t control when they publish, what the story is about, and most importantly, other experts being quoted in the story.

Most good journalists use multiple sources for their report, and you can’t control the order in which you’re quoted or if you’re quoted in the same story as a competitor, former partner or someone who is generally regarded as unethical in your space.

Again, as a source, you can’t control the narrative like you can as a guest columnist or regular contributor.

Conclusion

All PR is good PR, but the right PR is worth its weight in gold. Let me know what you’re doing to garner earned media coverage. I’d like to hear more.

#thoughtleadership, #bylinedarticles, #mediacoverage, #PR