John O’Connell was recently published in Investing.com on the limits of financial influencers for high earners. His argument is that finfluencers filled a real vacuum, with 79% of millennial and Gen Z consumers turning to social media for financial advice, and the best creators genuinely help with the foundational layer: emergency funds, debt payoff, Roth mechanics, 401(k) matches. But the model breaks down at higher income levels, because short-form content optimizes for engagement, not outcomes, and can’t carry tax complexity, equity compensation, or insurance gap analysis. His point is that a 35-year-old HENRY earning $350,000 with RSUs, a spouse, and a business interest isn’t the same person as the 27-year-old who opened a Roth because a creator made it click, so literacy isn’t a plan. His advice is to treat finfluencer content as a floor, not a ceiling, and to vet it with three questions: does the creator have real credentials or operating experience, does the advice apply at your income and tax bracket, and is the recommendation platform-agnostic or product-linked.