When we last covered the CLARITY Act in early March, the bill had just missed its March 1 deadline. The sticking point was a dispute over stablecoin yields that had nothing directly to do with Bitcoin — but was blocking the entire digital asset market structure legislation from advancing.
That blockage is now cleared. On March 20, the Senate and White House reached a deal on the stablecoin yield carve-out. The agreement creates a new regulatory category for yield-bearing stablecoins — separate from bank deposits and securities — with reserve requirements, disclosure obligations, and a regulatory perimeter that satisfied the holdouts on both sides.
The CLARITY Act can move again. And according to Galaxy Digital's head of research Alex Thorn, it needs to move fast — the April window is critical before the legislative calendar fills with reconciliation and appropriations work.
For Bitcoin families focused on custody architecture and estate planning, this article answers the three questions that matter right now: What did the deal actually settle? What does the CLARITY Act still decide for Bitcoin specifically? And what should you be doing about your custody structure before April regardless of whether the bill passes?
The bottom line: the deal removes the primary obstacle, but passage is not guaranteed. The custody moves you should make are the same ones that would be smart even if CLARITY never passes — but the timing window for getting positioned ahead of potential regulatory clarity is narrowing.
1. What the Senate Deal Actually Settled — and What It Didn't
The dispute was always about stablecoins, not Bitcoin. But understanding what got resolved — and what's still on the table — matters for predicting how quickly CLARITY moves and what form the final bill takes.
What Got Settled: The Stablecoin Yield Carve-Out
The core disagreement was whether stablecoins that pay yield to holders should be regulated as bank deposits, securities, or something else entirely. A bipartisan group of senators viewed yield-bearing stablecoins as functionally equivalent to money market funds or uninsured deposits — instruments that should operate within the banking regulatory perimeter. Crypto-friendly legislators argued that overregulating stablecoin yield would push activity offshore.
The deal threads the needle. Under the agreement:
- Yield-bearing stablecoins are classified as a new category — "regulated digital payment instruments" — distinct from both bank deposits and securities.
- Reserve requirements: Issuers must maintain 1:1 reserves in short-duration U.S. Treasuries, cash, or cash equivalents, with monthly third-party attestation.
- Yield disclosure: Issuers must disclose the source and rate of yield, redemption terms, and risk factors in standardized format.
- Regulatory oversight: The OCC and state banking regulators share oversight, with the SEC excluded from primary jurisdiction over stablecoin yield products (a significant concession).
- FDIC insurance does not apply: Yield-bearing stablecoins are explicitly not insured deposits, and issuers cannot market them as such.
For the purposes of Bitcoin estate planning, the relevant fact is simple: this was the blockage, and it's been cleared. The stablecoin provisions operate in a different part of the bill from the market structure and custody provisions that affect Bitcoin directly.
What the Deal Didn't Settle: Bitcoin-Specific Provisions Still in Play
The CLARITY Act's Bitcoin-relevant provisions were never the source of the dispute — they have bipartisan support — but they haven't been finalized either. The key provisions still being finalized include:
- Qualified custodian definition: Which entities can legally custody Bitcoin for investment advisers and trust accounts.
- Non-security confirmation: Codifying Bitcoin's status as a commodity (not a security) into federal statute.
- OCC–SEC jurisdictional clarity: Whether OCC-chartered banks automatically satisfy SEC qualified custodian requirements.
- Market structure rules: Trading, settlement, and reporting requirements for spot Bitcoin markets.
These provisions are broadly agreed upon in principle. The legislative drafting work is ongoing, but there is no active dispute comparable to the stablecoin yield fight. The path forward is primarily procedural — committee markup, floor scheduling, and vote whipping — not substantive renegotiation.
What this means for families: The deal clears the primary political obstacle, but don't confuse "deal reached" with "bill passed." The CLARITY Act still needs committee markup, a floor vote, House reconciliation, and presidential signature. Each step introduces delay risk. Plan for both scenarios.
2. The April Window: Why Alex Thorn Says This Is Critical
Galaxy Digital's Alex Thorn — one of the most closely followed crypto policy analysts — has been vocal that April represents a genuine legislative window for the CLARITY Act, not a soft deadline like March 1 was.
His reasoning is structural, not speculative:
The Legislative Calendar Problem
Congress operates on a finite bandwidth model. Major legislative vehicles — particularly budget reconciliation and annual appropriations — consume the overwhelming majority of floor time and committee attention during certain periods. Once reconciliation instructions are formally adopted (expected late April or early May), the Senate's procedural calendar becomes dominated by that process.
The CLARITY Act is not a reconciliation-eligible bill. It cannot be attached to the budget process through reconciliation rules. That means it needs regular order: committee markup, cloture votes, and dedicated floor time. All of which become scarce commodities once reconciliation kicks in.
The Midterm Overhang
2026 is a midterm election year. Starting in late summer, legislative productivity historically drops as members shift focus to campaigning. Bills that haven't advanced through committee by mid-year tend to die on the calendar — not because they lack support, but because they lack floor time.
Thorn's analysis suggests the CLARITY Act has roughly a four-to-six-week window — from late March through late April — where it can realistically advance through committee and potentially reach a floor vote. After that, the bill risks being pushed to a lame-duck session (post-election, November–December) or into the next Congress entirely.
Why This Timeline Matters for Custody Decisions
If the CLARITY Act passes by late April or early May, families could see new custodian options — including major national banks — entering the Bitcoin custody market by Q3 or Q4 2026. Trust documents drafted now should be flexible enough to accommodate those new options without requiring amendment.
If CLARITY stalls past April, the current custodian landscape remains unchanged for at least another six to twelve months. Planning around existing options — SEC-registered custodians, state-chartered trust companies, and Wyoming PFTCs — becomes the only prudent path.
Either way, the custody architecture decisions you face today are the same. The variable is which custodians populate the architecture — not whether you need one.
Timeline summary: Senate committee markup expected late March / early April. Floor vote window: April. If it slips past April, likely delayed to lame-duck session (November–December) or next Congress. The stablecoin deal removes the substantive obstacle; the calendar is now the constraint.
3. What CLARITY Would Do for Bitcoin Specifically
Strip away the stablecoin provisions, the DeFi governance rules, and the exchange registration requirements. For Bitcoin — and specifically for Bitcoin held in family trusts and estate planning structures — the CLARITY Act does three things that matter.
3a. Qualified Custodian Definition
This is the big one. Under current law, the term "qualified custodian" for investment adviser accounts is defined by SEC rules — primarily Rule 206(4)-2 under the Investment Advisers Act. That rule was written for traditional financial assets and has been applied to digital assets through a patchwork of guidance, no-action letters, and enforcement actions.
The CLARITY Act would create a federal statutory definition of "qualified digital asset custodian" that explicitly includes:
- OCC-chartered national banks that meet digital asset custody standards.
- State-chartered trust companies that are authorized to custody digital assets under state law (this includes Wyoming special purpose depository institutions and South Dakota trust companies).
- SEC-registered broker-dealers with digital asset custody capabilities.
- Federally qualified custodians that meet new federal standards for key management, asset segregation, insurance, and audit requirements.
For family trusts, the practical impact is significant. Currently, trust documents that require a "qualified custodian" for Bitcoin holdings operate in a gray area — the term means different things depending on which regulatory framework you're referencing. CLARITY would create a single federal standard, making trust drafting cleaner and custodian selection more defensible.
3b. Non-Security Confirmation
The SEC has already confirmed that Bitcoin is not a security — a position that has been consistent across administrations. But agency guidance can change. A new SEC chair, a new enforcement theory, or a court ruling could theoretically alter that position.
The CLARITY Act would codify Bitcoin's non-security status into federal statute. This is significant for custody architecture because securities and non-securities have different custodian requirements, different reporting obligations, and different treatment in trust accounting. Statutory clarity eliminates the residual risk that a future SEC reversal could force restructuring of existing custody arrangements.
This also connects directly to the custody architecture framework we've written about previously: if Bitcoin is definitively not a security, then trust custodians are governed by trust law and banking law — not securities law. That simplifies the compliance landscape for directed trustees and custodian trust companies.
3c. Market Structure Clarity
CLARITY would establish rules for how spot Bitcoin markets operate — registration requirements for exchanges, settlement finality rules, and reporting obligations. While this primarily affects trading venues, it has downstream custody implications:
- Settlement finality: Clearer rules about when a Bitcoin transaction is "final" for regulatory purposes affect trust accounting and distribution timing.
- Exchange-custodian integration: Rules about how exchanges and custodians interact affect the operational mechanics of trust-held Bitcoin — particularly for trusts that need to execute transactions (rebalancing, distributions, tax-loss harvesting).
- Reporting: Standardized reporting requirements would simplify trustee record-keeping and beneficiary accounting.
For most family trusts, these are operational improvements rather than structural changes. But they matter at the margin — especially for complex dynasty trust structures where administrative burden can affect trustee willingness to accept the role.
4. Custody Architecture Implications: Bank Trust Departments vs. Wyoming PFTCs
This is where the CLARITY Act gets practically consequential for families making custody decisions right now. The bill would reshape the competitive landscape between two categories of custodians that serve family trusts: bank trust departments and Private Family Trust Companies (PFTCs), particularly those chartered in Wyoming.
The Current Landscape
Today, families who want to hold Bitcoin inside a dynasty trust with a qualified custodian typically choose from three categories:
| Custodian Type | Examples | Regulatory Framework | Bitcoin Custody Capability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Digital-native custodians | Coinbase Custody, BitGo, Anchorage Digital | SEC-registered, state trust charters | Strong — purpose-built |
| Bank trust departments | Northern Trust, BNY Mellon, U.S. Bank | OCC / state banking regulators | Limited — most are cautious |
| Wyoming PFTCs | Family-specific entities | Wyoming Division of Banking | Varies — trustee-dependent |
The awkward reality: bank trust departments have the institutional infrastructure, compliance frameworks, and generational track record that wealthy families want — but most won't touch Bitcoin because of regulatory ambiguity. Digital-native custodians have the Bitcoin expertise but lack the trust administration capabilities and multi-century institutional history. Wyoming PFTCs offer maximum control but require significant setup cost and ongoing governance.
What CLARITY Changes
If CLARITY passes, bank trust departments get the regulatory clarity they've been waiting for. OCC-chartered banks could custody Bitcoin inside trust accounts with the same legal certainty they have for stocks, bonds, and real estate. The practical implications:
For bank trust departments:
- Major banks like Northern Trust, BNY Mellon, and JPMorgan could offer Bitcoin custody inside their existing trust services — no separate relationship with a digital-native custodian needed.
- Fiduciary standards would be governed by OCC banking regulations and state trust law, which are well-established and well-understood by estate planning attorneys.
- Insurance coverage for custodied Bitcoin would likely improve as banks integrate it into their existing custody insurance programs.
- Trust accounting and tax reporting would be handled through the same systems banks use for all other trust assets.
For Wyoming PFTCs:
- PFTCs retain their advantage for families who want maximum control over investment decisions, trustee selection, and governance structure.
- However, the regulatory arbitrage advantage diminishes. Part of Wyoming's PFTC appeal was that it offered a compliant path to Bitcoin custody when national banks couldn't or wouldn't. If national banks can, the value proposition shifts from "only way to do it compliantly" to "preferred governance structure."
- PFTCs that rely on digital-native sub-custodians (Coinbase Custody, BitGo) continue to operate normally — CLARITY doesn't disadvantage them, it just adds competitors.
The bottom line for custody architecture: CLARITY expands options without eliminating existing ones. Families who already have functional custody arrangements — whether through digital-native custodians, Wyoming PFTCs, or self-custody with successor planning — don't need to change anything. But families still designing their custody architecture should build in flexibility for a post-CLARITY custodian landscape.
Practical guidance: If you're drafting or amending trust documents now, use language that references "qualified custodians as defined by applicable federal and state law" rather than naming specific custodians or regulatory categories. This gives you flexibility to add bank trust department custodians later without amending the trust instrument.
5. Two Scenarios: CLARITY Passes in April vs. Stalls Again
Rather than predict the outcome, let's map both scenarios and what each means for custody decisions you're making now.
Scenario A: CLARITY Passes by Late April / Early May
What happens:
- The bill moves through Senate committee, reaches a floor vote, and passes with bipartisan support. House passage follows within weeks (the House has been ahead of the Senate on crypto regulation). Presidential signature expected given White House involvement in the deal.
- Implementation timeline: 12–18 months for rulemaking and custodian registration, with some provisions effective immediately.
Custody implications:
- Major national banks begin announcing Bitcoin custody services by Q3–Q4 2026.
- Qualified custodian pool expands significantly within 12–18 months.
- Trust documents drafted with flexible custodian language can accommodate new options without amendment.
- Insurance terms improve as competition increases.
- Wyoming PFTCs remain viable but lose their regulatory exclusivity advantage.
What to do now:
- Draft trust documents with flexible custodian definitions.
- Build your custody architecture assuming the current custodian set, with clear upgrade paths.
- Begin conversations with your primary bank about their digital asset custody roadmap — if they have one.
- Don't wait to set up multisig, successor trustee designations, or Letters of Instructions.
Scenario B: CLARITY Stalls Past April — Delayed to Lame-Duck or Next Congress
What happens:
- Reconciliation and appropriations consume the Senate calendar. CLARITY loses momentum. The bill is either revisited during lame-duck (November–December, with unpredictable dynamics) or reintroduced in the next Congress (2027).
- The current regulatory framework — SEC guidance, state trust law, OCC interpretive letters — remains the governing framework for the foreseeable future.
Custody implications:
- No expansion of the qualified custodian pool beyond current options.
- Bank trust departments continue to sit on the sidelines for Bitcoin custody.
- Digital-native custodians (Coinbase Custody, BitGo, Anchorage) and Wyoming PFTCs remain the primary options for trust-held Bitcoin.
- The regulatory gray area persists — manageable, but not ideal for conservative estate planning attorneys.
What to do now:
- The same four things as Scenario A. The custody architecture moves are identical.
- Additionally: if your estate planning attorney is hesitant about Bitcoin custody because of regulatory uncertainty, prepare a brief on the SEC's non-security confirmation, existing qualified custodian options, and the custody tier framework for managing fiduciary risk.
- Consider a Wyoming PFTC if you need maximum control and want to operate within a jurisdiction that has already legislated digital asset custody rules.
The punchline: Your action list is the same in both scenarios. The CLARITY Act affects which custodians are available, not whether you need a custody plan. Build the plan now. Upgrade the custodians later.
6. Four Actions Families Should Take Before April — Regardless of Outcome
These are regulation-agnostic moves. They work whether CLARITY passes, stalls, or gets amended beyond recognition. They are the same moves we recommended in our March 3 article, with updated context based on the Senate deal.
Audit Your Current Custody Architecture
Map every Bitcoin holding by location, access method, key holder, and successor access. Include exchange accounts, hardware wallets, multisig setups, and any Bitcoin held in retirement accounts or trust structures. You cannot make informed custody decisions — pre- or post-CLARITY — without knowing exactly what you have and where it sits. If you haven't done this exercise, our custody architecture guide walks through the complete framework.
Draft or Update Your Letter of Instructions
A Letter of Instructions (LOI) is the operational companion to your will and trust documents. It tells your successor trustee or executor exactly how to access, transfer, and manage your Bitcoin — including technical details that legal documents don't cover. This document should reference wallet types, key locations, passphrase storage, contact information for custodians, and step-by-step recovery procedures. It needs to be updated whenever your custody arrangements change — and the CLARITY Act could trigger exactly that kind of change.
Brief Your Estate Planning Attorney on the CLARITY Act
Most estate planning attorneys are not tracking crypto regulation in real time. Your attorney needs to understand: (a) the CLARITY Act's potential impact on qualified custodian definitions, (b) the SEC's existing non-security confirmation for Bitcoin, (c) the difference between OCC-regulated custody and SEC-regulated custody, and (d) the implications for trust drafting language. Prepare a one-page brief or send them this article. The goal is to ensure your trust documents are drafted with enough flexibility to accommodate either scenario — CLARITY passes or it doesn't.
Evaluate Your Multisig and Successor Access Structure
Regardless of which institutional custodians are available, the most critical custody decision for estate planning purposes is your key management and successor access architecture. If you're using self-custody, do you have a 2-of-3 or 3-of-5 multisig with geographically distributed keys? Does your successor trustee have a clear, tested path to accessing those keys? If you're using an institutional custodian, is your beneficiary designation current? Does your custodian have a documented succession process? These questions are urgent now — not because of CLARITY, but because they've always been urgent.
7. The Basel III Connection: What the Fed's Bitcoin Proposal Means Alongside CLARITY
The CLARITY Act doesn't operate in isolation. Running in parallel this quarter is the Federal Reserve's Basel III endgame proposal, which includes provisions that directly affect how banks treat Bitcoin on their balance sheets — and by extension, whether bank custody of Bitcoin is economically viable.
The Basel III Bitcoin Proposal
Under current Basel III rules (as implemented by the Fed), banks that custody Bitcoin must hold dollar-for-dollar capital against the full market value of the custodied assets. This is a 100% risk weight — the same treatment as the bank's most risky loan portfolios. For context, U.S. Treasury securities receive a 0% risk weight, and investment-grade corporate bonds receive a 20% risk weight.
The 100% risk weight makes Bitcoin custody economically punishing for banks. Every dollar of Bitcoin they custody requires a dollar of regulatory capital sitting idle — capital that could otherwise be deployed in lending or investment activities. This is why major banks have been reluctant to offer Bitcoin custody even as demand has grown: the economics don't work under current capital rules.
What's Changing
The Fed has proposed modifications to the Basel III treatment of digital asset custody as part of the broader Basel III endgame rulemaking. The proposal would:
- Reduce the risk weight for custodied Bitcoin held on behalf of clients (not proprietary positions) — potentially from 100% to 20-40%, depending on the final rule.
- Distinguish between custody and proprietary holding: Banks that simply custody Bitcoin for clients would face lower capital requirements than banks that hold Bitcoin on their own balance sheet.
- Create a "segregated custody" safe harbor: Banks that can demonstrate full segregation of client Bitcoin from the bank's own assets would receive more favorable capital treatment.
Why This Matters Alongside CLARITY
CLARITY gives banks the legal authority to custody Bitcoin. Basel III reform gives them the economic incentive to actually do it. Without both, bank Bitcoin custody remains either legally ambiguous or economically unviable.
If both CLARITY and Basel III reform advance this quarter, you could see major banks entering the Bitcoin custody market by late 2026 or early 2027 — with fee schedules, insurance terms, and trust integration capabilities that significantly change the family office custody landscape.
If CLARITY passes but Basel III reform stalls, banks have legal authority to custody Bitcoin but limited economic incentive to offer it at competitive pricing. The digital-native custodians and Wyoming PFTCs retain their cost advantage.
If Basel III reform advances but CLARITY stalls, banks have better economics for custody but unclear legal authority — an unlikely scenario to result in major bank custody offerings.
The dual-track thesis: The CLARITY Act and Basel III reform are parallel regulatory developments that together determine whether bank Bitcoin custody becomes a mainstream family trust option. Track both. Plan for any combination of outcomes. The custody architecture principles remain constant.
8. The SEC Non-Security Confirmation: Reinforcing the Case for Direct Bitcoin Custody in Trusts
One more regulatory development deserves attention in this context: the SEC's explicit confirmation that Bitcoin is not a security. While this position has been implicit for years, the SEC formalized it in early 2026 — and the timing is not coincidental.
What the Confirmation Means for Trust Custody
If Bitcoin is not a security, then holding Bitcoin in a trust does not trigger securities custody requirements under the Investment Advisers Act. That means:
- Trustees are not required to use an SEC-registered qualified custodian for Bitcoin held in a trust that is not an investment adviser account. This is already the prevailing legal interpretation, but the SEC's explicit confirmation removes any residual ambiguity.
- Self-custody of Bitcoin in a trust — where the trustee directly holds keys — is not a violation of securities custody rules. It may still raise fiduciary duty questions under state trust law, but it does not violate federal securities law.
- Directed trust structures — where a distribution trustee directs a custodian trustee on Bitcoin management — can use any custodian that satisfies state trust law requirements, not just SEC-registered custodians.
How This Connects to CLARITY
The SEC non-security confirmation and the CLARITY Act are mutually reinforcing. The confirmation removes the federal securities overlay from Bitcoin custody decisions. CLARITY would codify that removal into statute and additionally expand the qualified custodian pool for situations where a qualified custodian is needed (investment adviser accounts, certain retirement plan holdings, etc.).
For families who hold Bitcoin directly in a trust (not through an investment adviser), the SEC confirmation is arguably more immediately relevant than CLARITY. It confirms that your current custody arrangement — whether self-custody, digital-native custodian, or Wyoming PFTC — is not in conflict with federal securities law. That's a significant piece of comfort for trustees and their counsel.
For families who hold Bitcoin through an investment adviser, CLARITY remains the more consequential development — it determines which custodians satisfy the qualified custodian requirement for adviser-managed accounts.
Practical takeaway: If your Bitcoin is held in a trust (not an investment adviser account), the SEC non-security confirmation already gives you broad flexibility in custodian selection under federal law. State trust law governs your fiduciary obligations. CLARITY expands your options further, but you don't need to wait for it to make sound custody decisions today.
Putting It All Together: The Regulatory Picture for Bitcoin Custody in Q1 2026
Three regulatory developments are converging this quarter. Each one independently improves the Bitcoin custody landscape for family trusts. Together, they represent the most significant shift in the regulatory environment for Bitcoin estate planning since the asset class emerged:
| Development | Status | Impact on Custody | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLARITY Act | Senate deal reached; April vote window | Expands qualified custodian pool; codifies Bitcoin as non-security | April vote → 12-18 month implementation |
| Basel III Reform | Fed proposal under comment | Makes bank custody economically viable | Final rule expected mid-2026 |
| SEC Non-Security Confirmation | Issued | Removes securities custody overlay for trust-held Bitcoin | Effective now |
The convergence is notable. For the first time, the legal framework (CLARITY), the economic framework (Basel III), and the regulatory posture (SEC confirmation) are all moving in a direction that supports institutional Bitcoin custody for family trusts.
But "moving in a direction" is not the same as "arrived." CLARITY hasn't passed. Basel III hasn't been finalized. And regulatory postures can shift. The families that position themselves well are the ones who build custody architectures that work today and can be upgraded when — not if — the regulatory environment crystalizes.
That has been our consistent message, and the Senate deal doesn't change it. Build the structure. Choose custodians that are qualified under current rules. Draft documents with flexible language. Establish successor access and key management protocols. Then monitor the regulatory developments and upgrade your custodian choices when the new options become available.
The worst outcome is waiting for regulatory clarity and doing nothing. The second-worst outcome is building an inflexible structure that needs to be torn down and rebuilt when the rules change. The best outcome is building a regulation-agnostic foundation that accommodates whatever Washington decides.
That's what we recommend. That's what the families we work with are doing.
Our Estate Watch service monitors the CLARITY Act, Basel III rulemaking, and all other regulatory developments that affect Bitcoin estate planning — and surfaces the specific changes that require action. For families who want direct advisory support on custody architecture decisions, explore our Bitcoin family office advisory services.
Bitcoin Mining: The Most Powerful Tax Strategy Available
For high-net-worth Bitcoin families, mining is the only strategy that simultaneously generates yield, accumulates BTC, and creates significant tax offsets — through equipment depreciation, operating expense deductions, and bonus depreciation on capital investments. While CLARITY Act passage would reshape custody options, mining tax strategy is governed by IRS rules that apply today. Abundant Mines has compiled every major Bitcoin mining tax strategy in one place.
Explore Bitcoin Mining Tax Strategies →Work With The Bitcoin Family Office
We advise a small number of families on Bitcoin custody architecture, estate planning structuring, and regulatory navigation. If your family is working through custody and succession decisions — with or without CLARITY Act resolution — we'd be glad to talk through your specific situation.
View Our Services →Track the CLARITY Act and Other Regulatory Developments
Estate Watch monitors Bitcoin regulatory developments — CLARITY Act progress, Basel III rulemaking, SEC guidance changes, state trust law updates — and alerts you to the specific changes that affect Bitcoin estate planning. No noise. Only the changes that require action.
Monitor with Estate Watch →Important Disclosure
This content is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, tax, financial, or investment advice. It should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with qualified legal, tax, financial, or other professional advisers. Laws, regulations, and tax rules referenced herein are subject to change and may differ by jurisdiction; information presented may be outdated or contain errors. Individual circumstances vary significantly — strategies and structures appropriate for one person may be inappropriate or harmful for another. Legislative and regulatory developments described herein reflect information available as of March 2026 and are subject to change. Always consult qualified legal counsel, a licensed tax professional, and a registered financial adviser before implementing any estate planning strategy, custody structure, or investment decision. The Bitcoin Family Office does not provide legal, tax, or investment advisory services. Past performance and projections are not indicative of future results.