Visionary Square to pay $50 monthly FINNY AI fee for 250-plus advisors

Visionary Square will pay FINNY's $50-a-month AI platform fee for more than 250 advisors, and FINNY will also take a small share of the assets those advisors win through the platform.

At 250 seats the subscription line is $12,500 a month, or $150,000 a year. The disclosed count is more than 250, so both figures are floors. The table below sets out the disclosed terms, the governing breach clocks and Fitch's AI risk scores. The fee and seat figures come from the Visionary Square–FINNY arrangement, the clocks from Reg S-P, the scores from Fitch.

The partner-firm advisor's economics do not change on day one: the network absorbs the $50, so a seat costs nothing at the margin. What the advisor does not see on that invoice is the second price — FINNY's share of the assets the platform helps win, a rate the released figures do not state.

A per-seat fee is knowable in advance and easy to budget. An asset share is neither: it depends on how much business the tool touches and on how the contract defines a win. A vendor paid on both has an interest in where the platform is used, not only in how many advisors log in, and a book where accounts move is worth more to it than one where they sit still.

The coverage does not say how the share is measured, whether it applies to accounts the tool touched or to assets an advisor gathers after adoption. The difference is not small. A share of what the platform produced is a distribution cost; a share of everything gathered afterwards is a claim on the book.

For the network, the trade is a fixed cost against a variable one. Visionary Square's subscription at 250 seats buys adoption across its partner firms; the asset share is the part whose size depends on what those advisors do next. Whether that is cheap depends on a rate the disclosure leaves blank.

Under Reg S-P, a website vendor has 72 hours to report a breach to the firm, which then has 30 days to notify clients. The PHP2Shell flaws put RIA website vendors under that 72-hour breach-reporting duty, and it is a regulatory requirement for covered institutions, not a voluntary standard.

The obligation does not scale with the subscription, and it is priced in hours rather than dollars. A per-seat subscription sits under the same 72 hours and the same 30 days as the rest of the stack, and the client notice goes out over the firm's name, not the vendor's. A network signing seats for 250-plus advisors signs for the clock too, which makes the notice clause a procurement item rather than boilerplate.

Fitch scores wealth managers 40 out of 100 on AI disruption risk. Standalone advisory firms share that 40 with retail and private banks, double the 20 for corporate and investment banks and insurers. Read as exposure, the number puts independent advice in the same bucket as retail banking on the AI question, and it is the network, not the individual advisor, that now signs the vendor contracts where that exposure is managed.

A WealthManagement.com column makes the client-side case: clients arrive with AI-drafted analysis, which shifts the advisor meeting from research to judgment. If the analysis becomes the cheap part of the job, the fee attaches to the judgment, and the platform supplying the analysis holds a claim on the assets it helped produce.

PWD's position: the $50 seat fee is the cheapest term in an AI contract and the only one that gets published. Networks absorbing it are buying adoption at a fixed, knowable price and leaving the variable terms — a share of the assets the tool helps win, and a reporting clock that belongs to Reg S-P — to be settled after the seats are issued. That is a defensible trade only if the network can measure what the asset share costs, and the released figures leave that rate unstated, which makes the network the party carrying the one number nobody has published.