Advisor Perspectives welcomes guest contributions. The views presented here do not necessarily represent those of Advisor Perspectives.
Most advisory firms now have digital assets somewhere in their client accounts. Some arrived through the spot Bitcoin and Ether ETFs that made the asset class accessible from an ordinary brokerage account. Others were transferred in from a prior advisor or a self-directed account, bought without anyone at the firm deciding they belonged there.
The question facing advisors is no longer whether clients can hold digital assets, because many already do. It is whether the firm can explain, in writing, how each position was sized, why a particular product was chosen, and where that decision is recorded. Most firms cannot, and that gap is the exposure.
An advisor does not need a market forecast to close this gap. Predicting Bitcoin's price is not the job of the advisor, and a policy that depends on a forecast is built on sand. What an advisor needs is a formal policy, decided in advance and documented in writing, that answers the handful of questions every client will eventually ask. A firm that has an established policy has a process. A firm that does not has a collection of positions and a set of one-off judgment calls it will have to defend later without a record.
The Importance of Sizing
Start with sizing, because it converts a general comfort level into a rule that applies consistently to every client. The defensible structure ties a maximum digital-asset weight to a client's documented risk profile, applies that ceiling at the household level rather than per account, and states what happens when a position grows past its ceiling. The household is the right unit because the risk profile belongs to the client, not to any one account. The test is one number — the client’s digital assets everywhere they sit as a share of everything the client owns — and it is the only test that counts the transferred-in and self-directed positions an account-by-account review never sees. The specific numbers belong to each firm. What matters is that the ceilings exist, that they connect to the risk profile, and that they are written down before a client's position outruns its ceiling and forces the conversation in real time.
Sizing is not the whole of suitability. A policy should also name the conditions under which even a suitably sized position is inappropriate, such as a client within a few years of drawing down the portfolio, or a concentrated position that arrived by transfer and now dominates the household. A ceiling tells an advisor how much is allowed. The suitability conditions tell an advisor when the answer is still no.
Differences Between Products
Product selection is where firms most often reach for the wrong criterion. The spot ETFs look interchangeable, and their headline fees cluster within a few basis points, which means fee alone is not a defensible basis for choosing among them. The real differences sit elsewhere.
Structure decides tax character, since the flagship funds are grantor trusts whose mechanics differ from a registered fund. Tax character decides which account a position belongs in. Custody varies, and issuer diversification is not the same as custody diversification, because a book spread across several issuers can still sit behind a single custodian.
And for Ether, yield now varies, because some products pass through staking rewards and others pass through none. A firm does not have to land on any particular answer. It has to state where it stands, so the selection reads as a decision rather than an accident.
Documentation Is Crucial
All of this is only as good as the file behind it. Under a fiduciary standard, the burden is on the advisor to show that a recommendation was suitable and that a process was followed. For each client with a digital-asset position, the file should hold the sizing decision and the risk profile it maps to; the product rationale measured against the firm's own criteria; and any client-directed designation the client acknowledged.
An examiner does not expect an advisor to have predicted the market. An examiner expects to see that decisions were made deliberately, documented at the time, and kept consistent with a stated policy. The most common failure is not a bad decision. It is a sound decision with no contemporaneous record, which under examination is hard to distinguish from no decision at all.
A written policy also changes the client meeting. When every advisor in the firm answers a digital-asset question the same way, and that answer traces back to a stated policy, the client hears a firm with a view rather than an individual improvising.
The clients are already asking, and the allocations are already happening. The firms getting ahead of this are the ones writing down how they handle digital assets before a falling market forces the question. That work requires an afternoon for the first draft, and the decision to put judgment on paper before a client asks who decided what and why.
John Fleming is CEO and Portfolio Manager of Honeybear Financial, where he runs an actively managed digital-asset fund and advises registered investment advisers and family offices on digital-asset strategy. He spent more than thirty years on the buy-side and co-founded Stadia Capital, later acquired by Morgan Stanley FrontPoint Partners. He writes the weekly Honeybear Crypto Digest at honeybearfinancial.substack.com.
A message from Advisor Perspectives and VettaFi: Discover something new! Click here to register for our upcoming webcasts.
Read more articles by John Fleming
Advisor Perspectives welcomes guest contributions. The views presented here do not necessarily represent those of Advisor Perspectives.
