How to Use Scenario Planning Across Business, Tax, and Legacy

Key Takeaways

Single path planning exposes founders to hidden risk because it assumes one future across business value, tax, and legacy instead of testing decisions across several plausible paths.
Fragmented advisors create structurally misaligned plans; scenario planning only works when business, tax, and estate decisions share the same assumptions and are coordinated through a central hub.
A coherent scenario system turns scattered what if questions into a disciplined, recurring process anchored in the Founders Freedom Process and Freedom Point.
The most effective scenarios are simple and integrated: three to four labeled futures, clear trigger points, and a one page decision map that leadership and advisors can actually use.
Scenario planning is not a forecast; it is a decision preparation discipline that supports exit readiness, tax awareness, and multigenerational legacy design without replacing your CPA or attorney.

Article at a Glance

Most founders are not planning for the wrong future. They are planning for only one future. Their business plan, estate documents, and tax strategy each assume a specific sequence of events, values, and timelines. When reality takes a different path, those plans start to work against each other.

Scenario planning addresses that problem by treating business value, personal freedom, tax exposure, and legacy design as one system instead of separate projects owned by separate advisors. Done well, it gives founders a practical way to test decisions across several plausible futures and to pre define responses long before a buyer appears, a law changes, or a family event forces action.

For 5–75M net worth founders, the goal is not elaborate modeling. The goal is a durable scenario framework that sits inside the Founders Freedom Process, connects business and personal planning, and gives the CPA and estate attorney a cleaner brief. The payoff is fewer rushed decisions, fewer surprises at exit, and a legacy plan that still works when the future does not unfold exactly as originally imagined.

Why Single Path Plans Leave Leaders Exposed

The Hidden Cost of Planning Around One Expected Future

Founders like clarity. A single path plan feels decisive: one exit date, one valuation target, one tax strategy, one estate structure. The problem is not the intelligence behind that plan; it is the structural assumption that the world will cooperate.

Every single path plan encodes specific beliefs about:

Enterprise value at a certain time
Exit timing and structure
Tax rates and rules
Family readiness and roles
Market conditions and buyer appetite

When any one of those shifts, the plan can become misaligned in ways that are expensive and slow to fix.

Take a founder who designed their tax and estate plan around a projected sale at 12 million in year three. If the business reaches 22 million in year two, or a buyer falls through and exit slides to year five, decisions that once fit together start to conflict. Gifting strategies, entity structures, compensation timing, and trust funding all need to be revisited. The direct costs are legal and accounting fees. The indirect costs are lost momentum, deferred decisions, and sometimes missed windows that do not reopen.

Single path planning also creates a false sense of control. A thick binder or neatly organized digital folder feels like preparedness. But a plan built for one future does not equip a founder to act when a different future arrives. In closely held businesses, the range of plausible futures is wide. The real question is not “Is my plan technically correct?” but “Does this plan hold up across more than one version of what might actually happen?”

What Founders and Families Stand to Lose

When a single path plan collides with an unexpected reality, the impact tends to show up in three places.

Tax exposure
Structures designed for a specific transaction type or sequence no longer fit, which can increase tax drag or close off otherwise useful options exactly when flexibility is needed.
Legacy execution
Estate documents written for a certain asset base, family situation, or liquidity profile may not match the actual balance sheet or family dynamics when a transition occurs. Provisions that looked fine ten years ago can feel rigid or unfair when circumstances change.
Decision clarity at critical moments
Founders reach for advice during transitions, disruptions, or health events. If every advisor is working from a different set of assumptions, the founder ends up reconciling conflicting guidance instead of choosing between clearly framed options.

Those are not abstract risks. They show up as real dollars lost, strained relationships, and a higher probability of exit regret.

How Fragmented Advisors Amplify Scenario Risk

Most founders are surrounded by capable professionals: a CPA who understands their returns, an estate attorney who drafts solid documents, and a financial advisor who can model post exit cash flow. Each does good work in their lane. The issue is structural: no one owns the whole system.

In a fragmented environment:

The CPA optimizes for current year taxes and transaction efficiency.
The estate attorney optimizes for control provisions, asset protection, and document compliance.
The business or exit advisor focuses on enterprise value, deal structure, and buyer dynamics.

Without a coordinating hub, these professionals rarely meet together, share a common assumption set, or see the full picture of what the others are recommending. The founder becomes the project manager of their own planning.

This is especially dangerous when decisions cross domains. An exit is not just a business event. It is a taxable event and a legacy event. A gifting strategy is not just an estate decision; it may affect liquidity, control, and tax outcomes. Scenario planning across business, tax, and legacy only works when all relevant advisors are working from the same scenarios at the same time.

The coordination gap widens over time. A tax strategy designed three years ago may be anchored to valuations, ownership percentages, and family assumptions that have drifted. Without periodic cross domain review, those drift points compound quietly until a triggering event forces a scramble.

When Business, Tax, and Estate Plans Operate in Silos

Each domain has a different lens.

Domain | Primary Focus | Typical Blind Spot When Isolated

Business strategy | Enterprise value, growth, exit readiness | Personal freedom and legacy consequences of decisions
Tax planning | Current year liability, transaction efficiency | Long term freedom, family dynamics, non tax objectives
Estate and legacy | Ownership transfer, control provisions, documents | Business cycles, exit timing, operational viability

A founder can run a standalone business scenario, for example, “What happens if revenue drops 30 percent?”, and arrive at operational answers. Without tax and legacy attached, that scenario still does not answer the real question: “What does this mean for my Freedom Point, my family, and the structures already in place?”

The Compliance Risk of Untested Structures

Some structures only work as intended if underlying assumptions remain within a certain range. Grantor trusts, family entities, and sale arrangements may rely on valuation, cash flow, and ownership patterns that no longer exist. If the business doubles in value, takes on new debt, or adds outside owners, a structure designed years earlier may not fit the new reality.

A recurring scenario process that links business events to tax and estate structures can surface those stress points early. The key is that the CPA, estate attorney, and planning hub are looking at the same set of futures, not three separate slides.

What Scenario Planning Really Does for a Founder

Decision Preparation, Not Prediction

Scenario planning is often confused with forecasting. Forecasts try to answer, “What is most likely to happen?” and then build a single set of numbers to match. Scenario planning asks, “What range of futures is plausible, and what decisions hold up across that range?”

Forecasts are useful for budgeting and short term operational planning. They become wrong the moment reality diverges from their assumptions. They also tend to offer little guidance about what to do next when things change.

Scenario planning accepts that the future will not follow a single path. Its output is not a perfect model; it is a decision map. That map shows:

Which actions make sense across several futures
Which decisions are highly sensitive to timing, valuation, or rules
What signals should trigger a change in course

For founders in the 5–75M range, that decision map must span three interconnected domains:

Business strategy and enterprise value
Personal wealth and Freedom Point
Legacy design and governance

A scenario that ignores any one of those is incomplete. Exit timing, ownership transfer, compensation structure, and reinvestment choices all ripple across the system at once.

How Scenario Planning and Forecasting Work Together

You do not choose between forecasting and scenarios. You integrate them.

Forecasts support near term decisions such as staffing, inventory, and cash management.
Scenarios support longer horizon calls such as when to harvest, how to structure a transaction, and how to design multigenerational ownership.

The shared assumptions need to stay in sync. A major change in the operating forecast, for example, a sustained shift in margins or growth, should automatically trigger a review of the relevant strategic scenarios.

Lessons from High Stakes Users of Scenario Planning

High stakes environments use scenarios because they face uncertainty they cannot eliminate.

Military planners use scenario based war games to test which strategies remain sound across a wide range of possible enemy moves. The aim is robustness, not precision prediction.
Institutional investors stress test portfolios against multiple macro environments rather than banking on a single forecast for inflation, liquidity, or correlations. The goal is to avoid catastrophic downside, not to optimize one perfect base case.

Founders face similar conditions, just with different labels: business cycles, buyer sentiment, law changes, and family events they do not fully control. The transferable lessons are clear:

Pre commit decision rules while the environment is calm.
Focus on a small number of critical uncertainties instead of trying to model everything.

Elements of a Coherent Scenario Planning System

Scenario planning is not an annual offsite exercise. It is a system. If that system is missing key elements, the scenarios quickly become stale or irrelevant.

Governance and Decision Rights

Somebody has to own the process. In a founder led business without a large internal staff, that coordinating role is usually a planning hub or fractional family office that sits above individual advisors.

Key questions:

Who initiates scenario reviews?
Who maintains the scenario documentation and assumption sets?
Who has authority to activate a pre agreed response when a trigger is hit?
Who must be consulted before a scenario driven decision goes live?

Ambiguity here is costly. In family businesses, unclear decision rights between the founder, spouse, children, management, and the board are a common source of delay. Clarifying governance ahead of time removes a surprising amount of friction when it is time to act.

Review Cadence and Documentation

A scenario system without a review rhythm is just a stack of old slides. The cadence does not need to be heavy. It does need to be explicit.

Typical pattern for a 5–75M founder:

Annual full review
Refresh assumptions, re test the scenario set, and adjust trigger points if needed.
Quarterly trigger check
Review key indicators tied to each scenario. If something is moving toward a threshold, schedule a focused conversation.
Event driven review
Automatically revisit scenarios when there is a major valuation shift, key departure or hire, legislative change, significant family event, or unsolicited offer.
Advisor sync
At least annually, bring the CPA, estate attorney, and wealth advisor into one coordinated review so their domain plans stay aligned with the current scenarios.

Documentation should be simple and consistent. Each scenario needs:

A short narrative name and description
Key numerical assumptions and their sources
The estimated business, tax, and legacy implications
Defined trigger indicators
Pre agreed first responses

The goal is not a glossy report. It is a set of working documents that advisors can actually read and challenge.

Roles and Responsibilities Across Business, Tax, and Legacy

Who Belongs in the Room and Why

Integrated scenarios require integrated voices. In practice, that usually means:

Founder and, where relevant, spouse or partner
CPA or tax advisor
Estate attorney
Business or exit advisor
Financial advisor or investment consultant
Coordinating hub or fractional family office

Each role sees something the others do not. The CPA understands tax exposure across different paths. The estate attorney understands how control and distribution provisions will function. The business advisor understands enterprise value, deal dynamics, and operational risk. The wealth advisor models post event cash flow and Freedom Point. The coordinating hub holds the whole picture and keeps everyone on the same page.

In leaner businesses, one firm may cover several of these roles, but the underlying perspectives still need to be present. A scenario built solely by finance or solely by legal will miss important realities.

Why Finance Cannot Own This Alone

Handing scenario planning to the CFO or controller seems logical. They know the numbers. They can build models. The risk is that financial models are good at capturing quantitative variables and weaker at capturing human ones.

Legacy and succession scenarios hinge on:

Who actually wants to lead the business
How family members relate to each other
What kind of governance they will accept
How heirs perceive fairness and responsibility

A scenario that looks excellent on paper but assumes a reluctant successor or a strained sibling relationship is fragile. These qualitative assumptions must be part of the scenario set, not left unspoken on the sidelines.

A useful way to think about it: finance can build the engine of the scenario system, but it cannot define the whole map.

Data and Assumptions Leaders Actually Need

The Minimum Viable Data Set

Scenario planning often stalls because teams spend months chasing perfect data. Founders do not need perfect data to get value. They need the right data, clearly labeled.

For a founder in the 5–75M band, the minimum viable set usually includes:

Current enterprise value range and key drivers
Freedom Point estimate and underlying lifestyle assumptions
High level tax exposure estimates under main exit or liquidity paths
Summary of current estate structures and their key assumptions
Snapshot of family situation, successor readiness, and governance preferences

Beyond that, more detail only helps if it changes decisions.

Common Assumption Pitfalls

Two patterns show up repeatedly.

Treating valuation as a fixed point rather than a range
Building scenarios around “the business is worth 20 million” locks planning to a single number. Value is better treated as a base, upside, and downside band connected to clear drivers.
Hiding qualitative assumptions
Scenario documents that only show numbers conceal family dynamics, personal priorities, and governance realities that may be more decisive than the financials.

Documenting Inputs So Advisors Can Challenge Them

A simple one page assumption sheet for each scenario is usually enough:

Key numbers and ranges
Qualitative assumptions that matter
Source of each assumption
Date last reviewed

Advisors can then see where the inputs came from, how fresh they are, and where to push back.

A Practical Framework for Building Integrated Scenarios

This five step framework sits inside the Founders Freedom Process and uses Freedom Point as an anchor. It is designed for 5–75M founders whose business is their primary asset and who want a single scenario system that ties together business, tax, and legacy decisions.

Step One: Clarify Strategic Questions and Time Horizons

Start with the decisions, not the models. For most founders in this band, scenario planning is most valuable around four decision clusters:

Exit or harvest timing
Reinvestment versus distribution choices
Ownership transfer and succession structure
Freedom Point readiness and personal timing

Each of those has business, tax, and legacy dimensions. The scenario work should be explicitly designed to inform them.

Then reconcile timeframes. Your business advisor might think in three to five year value creation cycles. Your estate plan may have been written on a ten year horizon. Your personal Freedom Point might be close or far depending on business outcomes. Write those timelines down side by side and see where they conflict before you build any scenarios.

Step Two: Select a Small Set of Critical Uncertainties

Resist the urge to list every unknown. Focus on the two or three variables that are both highly uncertain and highly consequential for your core decisions.

Common examples:

Enterprise value trajectory
Personal and family readiness for transition
External environment for deals and financing

A useful question: “If I could know the answer to only two questions about the future, which ones would change my decisions the most?” Those answers define your critical uncertainties.

From there, you can sketch three or four distinct scenarios with plain language labels, for example:

Accelerated Harvest
Steady Build and Hold
Forced Transition
Extended Legacy Hold

These cover very different futures without drowning you in permutations.

Step Three: Build and Weight Integrated Scenarios

For each scenario, capture enough to make the scenario decision useful:

Enterprise value range
Rough after tax cash to owner under the most likely structure
Freedom Point comparison
Legacy impact summary

You do not need to chase false precision. Directional clarity beats fragile exactness.

Instead of assigning percentage probabilities, classify scenarios as:

Primary (base planning focus)
Secondary (plausible and worth active preparation)
Contingency (lower probability but high consequence)

That is usually enough structure to prioritize attention and resources.

Step Four: Define Triggers and Pre Agreed Responses

Triggers turn scenarios into actual tools. Each scenario should have one to three measurable indicators that, if they cross a threshold, signal that scenario is unfolding.

Good triggers are:

Based on data you already track
Specific and unambiguous
Leading rather than lagging where possible

Examples:

Trailing twelve month EBITDA crossing a certain floor or ceiling
Receipt of a credible acquisition offer above a defined valuation band
Key family events such as a successor reaching a particular milestone

For each trigger, define a pre agreed response. Not a full playbook, but clear first moves:

Convene a named advisor group within a set time frame
Commission a specific review or valuation
Initiate a defined internal planning or governance conversation

This is where the discipline pays off. When a trigger hits, you execute instead of improvising.

Step Five: Translate Scenarios into a Leadership Decision Map

Most scenario binders gather dust. A one page decision map does not.

Organize it into three columns:

Column | Meaning

Decisions to make now | Robust across all scenarios
Decisions to stage or condition | Depend on which scenario unfolds
Decisions to defer and date check | Premature until uncertainty narrows or triggers are met

Tie each item back to one of your named scenarios. Bring this map to board conversations, advisor meetings, and key family discussions so everyone is working from the same view of the decision space.

Applying Scenario Planning to Business Operations

Scenario work is not just a strategic planning artifact. It shapes daily management when leaders actually use it.

Testing Exit Windows, Growth Investments, and De Risk Moves

A structured lens can be useful for operating against scenarios:

Assess where enterprise value truly stands under each scenario.
Protect against tail risks that show up across futures, such as customer concentration or key person dependency.
Enhance value with targeted moves that still make sense if the world does not cooperate perfectly.
Harvest when timing, valuation, Freedom Point, and family readiness align across the scenarios you trust most.

Before committing capital or taking on new obligations, ask:

How does this decision look in Accelerated Harvest?
What about Forced Transition?
Does it still make sense if the market stalls and exit extends?

That simple discipline surfaces risk concentrations that base case only decisions miss.

Operational Levers: Hiring, CapEx, and Debt

Long dated commitments bind you to a path. Scenario planning gives you a way to test those commitments before you sign:

Hiring for leadership roles that are critical in some scenarios but fragile in others
Capital expenditures that assume certain revenue or margin levels
Debt structures that are comfortable under base case but constraining in downside cases

Seeing these choices through a scenario lens does not mean you avoid risk. It means you choose which risks you are actually taking.

Using Scenarios to Support Exit and Liquidity Decisions

Exit is where single path thinking does the most damage. Many founders implicitly assume one path: grow, sell once, invest proceeds, then figure out life after. Scenario planning reframes exit as a set of conditional choices.

Key questions to test across scenarios:

Does each path fund Freedom Point with adequate margin?
How sensitive is after tax cash to timing and structure?
What happens to the estate plan under each path?

This is conceptual work, not tax advice. The actual implications of any structure for your situation should always be evaluated by a qualified CPA and tax attorney.

When you see several paths that fund your Freedom Point and align with realistic market conditions, you have real optionality. When only one scenario clears that bar, you know where your concentration risk lives and can plan accordingly.

Applying Scenario Planning to Tax Strategy

Tax planning is deeply scenario dependent, yet most tax work happens reactively after major decisions are already locked in. Bringing scenarios into the discussion early changes that dynamic.

How Coordinated Scenarios Surface Tax Aware Paths

If you arrive at your CPA’s office with three clearly articulated scenarios, for example, full sale, partial recap, or longer hold, the conversation changes. Instead of “How do we minimize tax on this deal we are already doing?”, the question becomes, “Given these paths, what are the broad tax profiles and which structures should we explore in advance?”

That gives your tax professionals something much more powerful: defined futures to prepare for. You are not asking them to predict law changes or market conditions. You are asking them to help you see which combinations of structure and timing are more tax aware across several plausible futures.

The specifics belong with them. Scenario planning stays at the level of concepts and decision framing.

Aligning Transactions, Compensation, and Distributions Across Scenarios

Small annual decisions accumulate into large tax outcomes. Scenario work helps align them with where you are in your planning arc and which scenarios you consider primary. For example:

In an Enhance oriented phase with an Accelerated Harvest scenario in view, you may choose to retain more earnings in the business and structure compensation differently than in a long hold scenario.
In a steady build scenario, you might prioritize flexibility and simplicity over more aggressive structures that only pay off if an early exit materializes.

The coordinating hub’s role is to bring this context to the CPA. The CPA’s role is to translate it into specific recommendations and compliance steps.

Using Scenarios as a Conversation Tool with Your CPA

Effective use looks like this:

Two or three scenario summaries, each on one page
Clear questions for each, such as “What are the high level tax implications of this path?” and “Are there structural adjustments we should consider in advance?”
Agreement on which scenarios deserve work now and which remain on the shelf

This structure keeps meetings focused and respects everyone’s time. It also reduces the risk of drifting into an open ended technical debate that does not move your planning forward.

Applying Scenario Planning to Legacy and Succession

Legacy planning is where single future assumptions are most entrenched and where drift is hardest to fix once documents are signed.

Why One Static Estate Plan Rarely Holds

Estate documents often reflect a moment in time: business value, family ages, marital status, tax law, and personal priorities. A decade later, the business may have tripled in value, children may have taken very different paths, and tax rules may have shifted. The documents may not have kept pace. If the original plan assumed a full sale at a given value and timing, what happens if the business transitions instead via partial sales, recapitalizations, or long term family hold? Many documents are not built with that flexibility in mind.

Scenario planning brings those alternative futures into the design process, not just into later clean up.

Modeling Sale, Hold, Transfer, and Philanthropy Side by Side

Most founder legacy conversations should at least consider:

Full sale and liquid asset deployment
Long term business hold with income distributions
Intergenerational transfer with varying levels of family involvement
Philanthropic paths that direct a portion of wealth toward causes or community

Looking at these options side by side, even directionally, clarifies:

Where documents need contingency language
How much flexibility is built in around who controls what, when
Which structures still work if the business path shifts midstream

Key Levers to Model in Legacy Scenarios

Legacy scenarios blend financial and qualitative levers. Core levers include:

Ownership structure and voting control
Liquidity available to heirs under each path
Governance mechanisms for decisions after founder involvement
Successor readiness and interest
Family expectations around fairness and roles

It is not enough to model how dollars move. The model has to reflect who is expected to do what, with what authority, under each future.

Aligning Business Succession with Family and Governance Decisions

Business succession and estate planning are too intertwined to design separately. Each constrains the other.

Scenario work should include explicit assumptions about:

Who leads the business under each path and on what timeline
How board or advisory structures evolve across transitions
How compensation, authority, and accountability are handled for family and non family leaders

If the answers differ materially across scenarios, you have identified concrete succession work that needs attention before any of those futures can be executed cleanly.

Keeping Scenario Planning Sustainable

The most common failure in scenario planning is not bad design. It is neglect.

Building a Review Cadence Tied to Events and External Changes

A practical, sustainable rhythm for most founders includes:

Annual half day scenario review
Quarterly 60 minute trigger check
Event driven reviews when pre defined thresholds are hit

What counts as a trigger for a fresh scenario build rather than a light update?

A material valuation jump or drop outside the original ranges
A major family event that changes succession or governance assumptions
A regulatory shift with structural tax or estate implications
A clear signal that current scenarios are no longer referenced in real decisions

When the framework stops showing up in advisor conversations, it is time to rebuild, not to force an outdated set back into use.

Avoiding Scope Creep and Scenario Fatigue

More detail does not equal more value. For most founder led companies, three or four clearly defined scenarios, each with a short assumption sheet, trigger indicators, and a place on the one page decision map, is enough.

A simple test for whether to add a scenario:

Does this scenario require meaningfully different decisions than the ones we already have?

If not, treat it as a variation within an existing scenario, not a new one.

A brief written scenario charter, covering scope, uncertainties, scenario labels, triggers, and review cadence, helps hold the line. Treat it as a constraint, not a suggestion.

Questions Leaders Commonly Ask

How many scenarios are enough?

For most privately held founder businesses, three to four scenarios is the practical sweet spot. Fewer and you risk blind spots. More and you dilute focus and make maintenance harder.

How often should we revisit our scenarios if nothing major has changed?

At least annually. Assumptions shift even when headline conditions feel stable. A focused annual calibration, supported by quarterly trigger checks, keeps the framework credible.

How do we balance scenario discipline with moving quickly on opportunities?

A good scenario system speeds decisions in familiar situations because the analysis is pre built. You only slow down for truly new patterns that do not match any existing scenario. The question to ask when an opportunity appears is, “Which scenario does this most resemble?” If the answer is clear, you already know the key tradeoffs.

Can leaner companies realistically do this without a large planning staff?

Yes. A founder, a coordinating hub, and a small advisor group can build and maintain a useful scenario system with modest time investment. The coordination role matters more than internal headcount.

How do we prevent scenarios from turning into complex models nobody reads?

Define the desired outputs at the start, typically a one page decision map and short scenario summaries. If an output cannot be explained in five minutes to a non financial stakeholder, it is too complex for its purpose.

How do we involve our CPA and attorney without endless technical debate?

Bring bounded questions tied to specific scenarios. Ask your CPA and attorney to respond to those defined paths rather than inviting them to design the entire framework from scratch. That uses their expertise where it adds the most value.

What signals tell us our scenarios are no longer useful?

When your valuation, family circumstances, or regulatory environment have materially shifted beyond the ranges you assumed, or when you notice that scenarios are no longer referenced in real decisions, the framework needs more than a tune up. It needs a fresh build anchored in your current reality.

Planning for More Than One Future

Founders rarely control the environment. They do control how prepared they are for the different futures that could credibly arrive. When business value, Freedom Point, tax awareness, and legacy design live in separate conversations, even strong advisors cannot protect against misalignment.

An integrated scenario system changes that. It gives you and your advisors one shared picture of several plausible futures, pre defined responses to the signals that matter, and a clearer sense of where your real risk lies. It does not remove uncertainty. It makes uncertainty more navigable.

If you want to explore how this kind of scenario planning could fit your situation, start with an internal review of your current plans. Ask where business, tax, and legacy assumptions diverge and which decisions feel most exposed to surprises.

From there, a coordinated planning session with a firm that acts as a central hub can help you map three to four integrated scenarios, define triggers, and create a decision map tailored to your balance sheet, your advisor team, and your family. That work can include a compliance aware assessment of how your current planning stack supports or hinders a more unified, scenario based approach across your business, tax, and legacy decisions.

ClearPoint Family Office offers tax planning, consulting, and preparation, as well as estate and business consulting. ClearPoint Family Office does not offer investment advice. When appropriate, ClearPoint Family Office may refer clients to Arlington Wealth Management, an SEC registered investment adviser, for advisory services. Registration as an investment adviser does not imply a certain level of skill or training, and the content of this communication has not been approved or verified by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or by any state securities authority. ClearPoint Family Office and Arlington Wealth Management are affiliated entities under common ownership.