Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Lars B's avatar

Average advice a lot harder to justify" might be the most important sentence in the Altruist announcement.

Not because AI does the analysis better - Hazel demonstrably does. But because it creates a baseline. Once every client can generate personalized tax strategies in minutes, advisors can no

longer compete on the analysis itself. The question shifts to what they add on top of it.

And that's a question most advisory practices aren't equipped to answer — not because they don't add value, but because they can't document where the value actually comes from. The advisor who looks at Hazel's scenario model and says "Scenario 2 is technically optimal but wrong for this client given what I know about their risk relationship history" — that judgment is invisible in current infrastructure. It doesn't compound. It doesn't get documented. It doesn't survive the advisor's departure.

The selloff is the market pricing in commoditization of analysis. But the real asymmetry isn't between advisors and AI. It's between advisors who can demonstrate judgment quality and those

who can't. I've been thinking about what the infrastructure for that looks like - not CRM notes or similar and audit trails, but structured records of why the human recommendation diverged from the AI baseline. That's a different kind of artifact than anything advisory practices currently produce.

It is happening already today - Gen X and millennial inheritors aren't just asking for digital fluency. They're going to ask "why did you recommend this, not the AI?" And they'll expect a structured answer.

Following.

Sacha Cohen's avatar

This is cool. I probably could use a robo tax advisor.

No posts

Ready for more?