Advisors routinely face questions that go beyond performance and allocation: How easily can this portfolio respond to an income shock? Which holdings can be used to fund unexpected needs without undermining long-term intentions? Where is the architecture becoming tight or overly dependent on a small group of assets? These are structural questions, and they require a view that makes liquidity, constraints, and cash-flow demands visible in a single frame instead of scattered across multiple reports.
Two forces shape these structural realities. One is the portion of wealth that can be mobilized quickly with minimal disruption, such as cash and high-liquidity assets aligned with near-term needs. The other is the portion that plays a deeper or more constrained role, from core strategic holdings to illiquid positions that are not easily adjusted in response to short-term events. When these forces are not measured explicitly, advisors risk underestimating the tension between clients’ real-world obligations and the portfolio’s capacity to accommodate them without stress.
A structural map that brings these elements together allows advisors to see where portfolios are comfortable, where they are stretched, and where combinations of low liquidity and high constraint deserve early attention. Instead of relying on intuition or fragmented checks, the advisor can refer to a single visual that summarizes structural posture and supports clearer, more grounded conversations with clients.
The Wealth Fluidity & Rigidity Overview translates this structural thinking into a concrete dashboard. It combines four coordinated views: a scatter map that positions each portfolio by its capacity to absorb shocks and the degree of structural constraint, a ranked list that highlights which clients sit closest to structural thresholds, and two heatmaps that reveal how liquidity and rigidity patterns form clusters across the advisor’s universe. Each component focuses on a specific question, and together they form a visual narrative of how adaptable, exposed, or resilient each portfolio appears under practical conditions.
The mockup below illustrates this architecture. The upper row combines the structural map and the fragility ranking, offering an immediate sense of posture and priority. The lower row surfaces patterns that would be difficult to detect client by client: how liquidity risk is distributed across advisors, and how the intersection of rigidity and liquidity creates structural zones that are either robust or delicate. The intent is to give advisors and leadership a single, coherent reference that turns structural complexity into something legible at a glance.
The scatter chart in the top-left quadrant of the mockup places each client as a bubble defined by two concrete metrics: Shock Absorption on the vertical axis, measured in months, and Structural Rigidity on the horizontal axis, normalized as SR%. A bubble in the upper-left zone signals higher liquidity and lower structural constraint, while a bubble in the lower-right zone signals limited liquidity and a significant portion of wealth tied in essential or illiquid holdings. For example, the larger orange bubble toward the right and slightly below center represents a client with elevated rigidity and a lower-than-ideal buffer capacity. Nearby bubbles with similar posture form a visible cluster that represents a segment of clients who, under stress, would require careful handling of core positions.
To the right of this map, the bar chart titled “Top Fragile Clients” converts structural conditions into a clear sequence of priority. Each horizontal bar represents a client’s composite fragility score, with values such as 88, 80, or 72 rendered directly beside the bars. A client appearing at the top of this list, like “Client C” with a score of 88, does so because the underlying metrics combine high rigidity with insufficient shock-absorption capacity. The relative length of the bar visually communicates how strongly each portfolio leans into a structurally sensitive zone compared to peers and helps advisors decide where structural discussion and planning should begin.
The bottom-left heatmap, “Liquidity vs. Advisor,” shows how clients assigned to each advisor are distributed across liquidity buckets labeled Critical, Fragile, Acceptable, and Comfortable. In the mockup, Advisor A displays eight clients in the Critical column and five in Fragile, while only one appears in Comfortable. Advisor D, by contrast, presents fewer clients in the most constrained categories and more in the resilient ones. This visual makes it immediately clear where liquidity stress is concentrated and where buffers are more robust, supporting conversations about how each advisor’s book is positioned from a liquidity standpoint.
The bottom-right heatmap, “Rigidity vs. Liquidity,” cross-references structural rigidity levels—Very rigid, Rigid, Moderate, and Very flexible—with the same liquidity buckets. Each cell shows the count of clients in that combination, forming a grid of structural states. Cells in the upper-left area, where categories like Critical and Very rigid intersect, indicate portfolios with limited optionality and low buffers. Cells toward the lower-right, combining Comfortable liquidity with Very flexible structures, represent architectures that can adjust more easily. By scanning this grid, advisors and leaders can identify where structural pressure accumulates and where the book exhibits healthy configurations, turning what would otherwise be a collection of individual situations into a cohesive structural overview.
Dashboards built on this type of structural logic are examples of the analytical layers that Pivolt can put in front of advisors. By embedding views like the scatter map, fragility ranking, and dual heatmaps directly into the advisory workflow, the platform helps transform structural insight into daily practice: advisors see where to focus, understand why certain clients require attention now, and gain a repeatable way to discuss liquidity and rigidity with clarity and confidence.
