Ok, first, I realize this is a very simplistic calculation. But if a younger advisor can succeed and make it through the first 3 years with some decent assets, and then bring in some new money each year, assuming a decent average return, is it safe to assume the following example: Using simple numbers. Advisor has $10,000,000 AUM. Along with investment gains (over time) at a modest 5% return, advisor brings in net new assets annually of only $4,000,000 per year. After 20 years, advisor has a book of business north of $150,000,000. So just the fact that a younger advisor has one of the biggest assets, time, suggests that every single dollar they can get their hands on, they should get. Using the rule of 72, there are multiple times that money would double over a young advisor's career.For example, if the young advisor was able to open IRA accounts for their friends of the same age and children of their clients, it would actually become a decent sized cash flow in the future. $5,000 IRA's today with annual contributions will be worth around $750,000 in 35 years assuming 7% growth. If a younger advisor just adds 20 of these relationships now, knowing they aren't making any money on it, in 35 years that's $15,000,000. As a younger advisor myself, it seems we get caught up in setting minimums and not taking the small accounts. I'm saying younger advisor, not a rookie. But there is an advisor in my area that manages hundreds of millions and is in his 40's. He started when I did. And his goal was to manage every dollar he could find from his clients. Even if it was a small $5,000 account. Ice, I feel maybe you and I understand this, but anyone else see the longevity and asset of time in their business?