Are Financial Advisors Ready for New Green Data-Centre Rules? in Europe

Direct answer: Not yet, for most independent financial advisory firms in Europe. New German and EU-wide green data-centre rules are reshaping which cloud regions, hosting providers, and AI tools will remain the cheapest and most compliant option going forward, and advisors who haven't audited where their client data and AI tools actually run are exposed to rising costs and compliance gaps they don't yet know about.

Through 2026, EU/German data-centre regulation reporting has documented a steady tightening of energy-efficiency, water-use, and reporting obligations on data centres operating in Germany and across the broader EU, driven by the bloc's climate commitments and Germany's own energy policy priorities. The practical effect is that data-centre operators are being pushed toward renewable-powered sites, waste-heat reuse, and stricter Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) reporting, and some existing facilities face retrofit costs or capacity constraints as a result. For financial advisory firms, this isn't an abstract sustainability story: it directly touches the infrastructure layer that runs your client portals, your CRM, your document storage, and increasingly, your AI-powered tools. A precise breakdown of how many data centres are affected or the exact compliance timeline isn't publicly available in the source reporting for every category of facility, so this piece reasons from the general direction of the rules rather than manufacturing numbers that aren't there. What is clear is that the compute layer underneath European financial services is being reorganized, and advisors relying on vendors who haven't planned for this will feel it first as service disruptions or price increases, and only later understand why.

What's Actually Changing, and Why It's Real

Germany has been one of the more aggressive EU member states in tying data-centre operating permits and energy contracts to efficiency benchmarks, and EU-level frameworks (building on the broader Energy Efficiency Directive push) are extending similar expectations across the bloc. Data-centre operators now face closer scrutiny on:

• Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) targets, pushing operators toward more efficient cooling and power delivery
• Renewable energy sourcing requirements or reporting obligations tied to a facility's energy mix
• Water usage disclosure, particularly relevant for cooling-intensive AI training and inference workloads
• Waste-heat reuse mandates in some jurisdictions, requiring new engineering investment

This is a real, ongoing regulatory shift, not a one-off announcement. The reporting is consistent that it's reshaping how new AI infrastructure gets sited and built across the continent, because AI workloads (training and running large models) are far more power- and cooling-intensive than traditional web hosting. Cloud providers and AI vendors that want to keep serving European customers at competitive prices have to either build compliant new facilities, retrofit older ones, or shift workloads to regions with more renewable capacity. Any of those paths takes time and money, and that cost eventually shows up somewhere in the vendor's pricing or service terms.

Why This Isn't Just a Hyperscaler Problem

It's tempting to assume this only matters to Amazon, Google, and Microsoft's data-centre planning teams. But financial advisors sit downstream of every one of those decisions. If your practice management software, your portfolio modeling AI, or your client-facing chatbot runs on infrastructure in a facility now under retrofit pressure, you inherit that uncertainty whether or not you ever see the data centre yourself.

The layering matters here. A large cloud provider negotiates directly with regulators, absorbs much of the compliance cost across a massive customer base, and has the capital to build new compliant capacity ahead of demand. A smaller regional hosting provider, or a niche fintech SaaS vendor renting capacity from a mid-tier data centre, has far less room to absorb that cost quietly. That's exactly the kind of vendor a smaller advisory practice is more likely to be using for a niche compliance tool, a portfolio analytics add-on, or a client communication platform — and it's exactly the kind of vendor least likely to have a public statement about how it's handling the shift. The risk isn't evenly distributed across the vendor landscape, and advisors who assume "if it's good enough for the big players, it's fine for us" are reasoning about the wrong layer of the stack.

There's also a timing dimension worth naming plainly. Regulatory compliance timelines for physical infrastructure rarely move in neat, predictable steps. A facility might be fully compliant today and face a retrofit mandate eighteen months from now once a new benchmark takes effect. Vendors who build for the current baseline without margin for the next round of tightening are setting themselves up to pass a shock, rather than a gradual cost increase, on to their customers. That distinction — gradual versus sudden — is exactly the kind of thing a five-minute vendor conversation can surface well before it becomes a renewal-time surprise.

Why This Matters Specifically to Financial Advisors in Europe

Financial advisory is one of the more infrastructure-dependent professional services categories, even though it doesn't feel that way day to day. Client portfolios, KYC records, transaction histories, and increasingly AI-assisted research and reporting tools all depend on servers running somewhere, and for European advisors, "somewhere" is now a variable that's shifting under new environmental compliance pressure.

Three things make this a live issue for advisors specifically, rather than a background IT concern:

1. Data residency intersects with data-centre siting. Many European financial advisors are already required, by client agreements or national regulation, to keep client data within the EU or within Germany specifically. If the pool of compliant, cost-competitive data centres in those jurisdictions is shrinking or shifting due to green rules, your options for where your systems can legally and practically run are narrowing at the same time.
2. AI adoption in advisory practices is accelerating. More advisory firms are piloting AI for portfolio commentary drafting, meeting summarization, compliance document review, and client communication. Every one of these tools runs on infrastructure somewhere, and vendors are quietly re-routing workloads as green rules bite. An advisor who doesn't know which region their AI vendor uses can't answer a client or regulator who asks.
3. Cost pass-through is coming, unevenly. As compliant capacity becomes more expensive to build and operate, some of that cost gets passed to software vendors, and from vendors to advisory firms as subscription price increases. Firms that haven't audited their vendor stack won't see this coming; they'll just notice renewal invoices creeping up with vague justifications.

None of this means the sky is falling. It means the assumption that "the cloud just works and someone else handles compliance" is less safe than it used to be, particularly for firms handling regulated client financial data.

There's also a competitive dimension that's easy to overlook. Advisory firms that get ahead of this — even modestly, by knowing their vendor exposure and building new tools with flexibility in mind — will be able to answer client and prospect questions with confidence while competitors are still checking with their IT provider. In a business built substantially on trust and demonstrated competence, being the advisor who can speak clearly about how client data is handled and hosted is a small but real differentiator, especially with the institutional and family-office segment of the market that already runs formal vendor due diligence as a matter of course.

It's worth being equally clear about what this trend does not mean. It does not mean advisors need to become infrastructure engineers, negotiate directly with data-centre operators, or make dramatic changes to systems that are working fine today. The rules govern facility operators, not advisory firms directly, and the appropriate response for a firm two or three layers removed from the data centre itself is proportionate diligence, not overreaction. The firms that will struggle are the ones that do nothing at all, not the ones that respond with a measured, well-scoped review.

What Changes in Practice for Your Website, App, and AI Tools

For most advisory practices, the practical exposure isn't your firm building its own AI infrastructure — it's the tools and platforms you've licensed or built on top of. Here's what shifts:

Vendor and Region Transparency Becomes Non-Negotiable

If you use any AI-powered tool that touches client data — a chatbot on your website, an automated meeting-notes assistant, a document summarizer — you need to know which cloud region it runs in and whether that vendor has a credible plan for the compliance shift underway. Vendors that can't answer this clearly are a risk signal, not just an inconvenience.

Automation Design Needs to Account for Portability

Firms building custom AI agents or automation workflows — for lead qualification, client onboarding, or report generation — benefit from designing those systems so the underlying model and hosting layer aren't hard-wired into the workflow logic. This is exactly the kind of architecture decisions covered under AI Agents & Automation, where automation is built to be portable across providers and regions rather than locked to whichever vendor was convenient at build time. That portability is what lets a firm move workloads if a given provider's regional capacity gets squeezed by compliance costs, without rebuilding the whole system.

Client-Facing Tools Need a Sustainability and Compliance Story

Advisory clients — particularly institutional and high-net-worth clients in Europe — are increasingly asking sustainability and data-governance questions as part of standard due diligence. A firm that can clearly explain where its AI tools run, how client data is protected, and how it accounts for the environmental footprint of its digital infrastructure is in a stronger position during those conversations than one that has to say "we'd need to check with our vendor."

Dashboards and Reporting Tools Need Infrastructure Awareness Built In

If your firm is building or upgrading internal dashboards for compliance tracking, client reporting, or portfolio monitoring, this is a natural moment to build infrastructure and vendor-dependency visibility directly into those tools. A well-scoped project — the kind laid out in Custom Dashboard Development: From Requirements to Rollout — can include a simple vendor-and-region tracking layer so your operations team always knows, at a glance, where critical systems run and what regulatory exposure that creates.

Marketing and Client Acquisition Channels Aren't Exempt

It's easy to think of this issue as confined to back-office systems, but advisory firms increasingly run marketing operations through AI-assisted tools too — content generation, video-based client education, and channel management platforms all touch the same underlying cloud infrastructure. A firm that has, for example, invested in growing its educational content presence the way described in How a YouTube Marketing Agency Grows Your Channel should apply the same vendor-awareness discipline to those tools as to core compliance systems. The stakes are lower for marketing content than for client financial records, but the underlying principle — know what runs where, and whether the provider has a credible compliance posture — applies just as much to the tools that bring clients in as to the tools that serve them once they're onboard.

The broader point is that this trend doesn't respect the boundary between "compliance-critical system" and "everything else." Any AI-dependent tool in your practice's stack sits on the same shifting infrastructure layer, and a full inventory should genuinely be full, not limited to the systems that feel obviously sensitive. A marketing automation tool that quietly stores prospect contact details and interaction history is still handling personal data, even if it feels lower-stakes than a portfolio management system.

What to Do About It Now

The right response isn't panic or a wholesale infrastructure migration. It's a structured, low-drama audit followed by deliberate design choices going forward.

Start with an inventory. List every AI tool and cloud-dependent system your practice uses that touches client data: CRM, portfolio software, document management, chatbots, meeting assistants, marketing automation. For each, note the vendor, the hosting region if known, and whether the vendor has published anything about data-centre sustainability compliance.

Ask vendors direct questions. A short, specific email to each vendor — where is our data hosted, what is your compliance posture on EU/German green data-centre rules, what is your contingency plan if a facility you use faces retrofit downtime — will quickly separate vendors who've thought about this from those who haven't.

Prioritize portability in new builds. Any new AI automation, client portal, or app you commission from this point forward should be built with the assumption that the underlying infrastructure may need to change. This is a design decision, not an afterthought, and it's far cheaper to build in from the start than to retrofit later.

Don't neglect the client experience layer. Infrastructure changes shouldn't be visible to clients as glitches or slowdowns. If your firm is onboarding clients through a mobile app or portal, the principles in Mobile App Onboarding Design: Getting Users to Their First "Aha" Moment are a useful reminder that resilience and smooth first impressions matter regardless of what's happening in the infrastructure layer behind the scenes.

Build internal awareness, not just IT awareness. Advisors themselves — not just the operations or IT staff — should understand enough about this shift to answer a client's basic question about it. It doesn't require deep technical knowledge, just a clear, current answer.

Set a review cadence, not a one-time checkbox. Vendor infrastructure decisions aren't static, and a vendor that's compliant and stable today may re-route workloads or change providers next year without necessarily announcing it prominently. Building a light annual (or renewal-triggered) review into your operations calendar means this stays a known quantity rather than something that gets rediscovered as a surprise every few years.

Loop in compliance and operations early, not after a problem surfaces. If your firm has a designated compliance officer or operations lead, this is exactly the kind of cross-functional issue that benefits from their involvement from the start — data residency questions in particular often sit at the intersection of what IT can answer and what compliance is required to sign off on. Treating it as a joint exercise avoids the common failure mode where each function assumes the other has it covered.

Pricing Context: Where This Kind of Work Typically Falls

Auditing and future-proofing your AI and infrastructure dependencies is a scoped, practical project, not an open-ended commitment. Here's how this type of engagement typically maps to service tiers:

Tier	Typical scope for this scenario
Essential — $1,000	Vendor and infrastructure audit, region and compliance checklist for existing AI tools, recommendations report
Growth — $2,000	Audit plus rebuilding one or two AI-dependent workflows (chatbot, onboarding automation, reporting tool) with provider portability built in
Enterprise — $4,000+	Full automation and AI agent architecture review across the practice, portable multi-provider setup, dashboard-level infrastructure tracking, and ongoing advisory support

Most independent advisory firms and small-to-mid-sized practices start at the Essential or Growth level, since the immediate need is clarity and a few key rebuilds rather than a full infrastructure overhaul. Firms with a larger existing footprint of AI-dependent tools, multiple regional offices, or institutional clients who run formal vendor due diligence tend to be better served starting at Enterprise, since the scope of systems needing review is larger and the cost of getting it wrong is higher.

Key Takeaways

• New German and EU-wide green data-centre rules are genuinely reshaping AI infrastructure siting and cost across Europe, not a speculative future risk.
• Financial advisors are exposed indirectly, through the AI tools, CRMs, and cloud platforms they license, not because they operate data centres themselves.
• Data residency requirements common in European financial services intersect directly with the shrinking or shifting pool of compliant data-centre capacity.
• Vendor transparency about hosting region and compliance posture should become a standard question in every AI tool procurement conversation.
• New automation and AI agent builds should be designed for portability across cloud providers and regions from day one.
• A scoped audit is the right first step — full infrastructure migration is rarely necessary, but informed vendor selection is.

Getting ahead of this doesn't require becoming an infrastructure expert overnight — it requires a clear-eyed audit and a few deliberate design choices in how your AI tools are built and hosted. If you want help figuring out where your practice actually stands and what to prioritize first, book a meeting with our team.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the new green data-centre rules in Germany and the EU?

They are a set of tightening energy-efficiency, renewable sourcing, and water-use reporting requirements applied to data centres operating in Germany and increasingly across the EU, driven by climate policy and energy-security priorities. They affect how new facilities are sited and how existing ones must operate or retrofit.

Why should a financial advisor care about data-centre regulation?

Because every AI tool, CRM, or client portal an advisory firm uses runs on infrastructure somewhere, and that infrastructure is now subject to compliance pressure that can affect cost, uptime, and data residency. Advisors inherit these risks indirectly through their vendors.

Does this affect small independent advisory practices or only large firms?

It affects both, though large firms with in-house infrastructure teams may notice it sooner. Small practices are often more exposed because they rely entirely on third-party vendors and may not be asking these questions at all.

What is Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) and why does it matter here?

PUE measures how efficiently a data centre uses energy relative to the energy consumed by its actual computing equipment. Regulators are tightening PUE expectations, which pushes operators toward more efficient facilities and can affect where and how cheaply AI workloads can run.

Will my client data become less secure because of these rules?

Not directly — the rules target energy and environmental performance, not data security. However, if a vendor has to move or retrofit infrastructure to comply, there can be transitional risk, which is why asking vendors about their compliance plans matters.

How do I find out where my AI vendor hosts client data?

Most reputable vendors will disclose this if asked directly, often in their data processing agreement or trust/security documentation. If a vendor cannot or will not answer clearly, that itself is useful information about their readiness.

Is this specific to Germany, or does it apply across the whole EU?

Germany has been a particularly active jurisdiction on this front, but EU-wide energy efficiency frameworks are extending similar pressure across the bloc. The exact requirements and timelines vary by member state.

What kind of AI tools do financial advisors typically use that could be affected?

Common examples include AI-assisted meeting summarization, portfolio commentary drafting tools, client-facing chatbots, document review automation, and CRM-integrated AI features. All of these depend on cloud infrastructure that could be affected.

Should I ask my current software vendors about this now?

Yes. A short, specific email asking where data is hosted and how they're addressing green data-centre compliance is a reasonable and low-friction way to start. It costs nothing and reveals a lot about vendor readiness.

What happens if my vendor's data centre faces a compliance-driven retrofit?

In the worst case, this could mean temporary capacity constraints, price increases, or a forced migration to a different region, potentially raising data residency questions. Vendors with a clear compliance plan should be able to explain how they'd handle this without disrupting your service.

Does this mean cloud AI services will get more expensive in Europe?

It's a reasonable pattern to expect that some compliance and retrofit costs will be passed through to customers over time, though a specific figure isn't publicly available for this angle. Firms should watch for this in vendor renewal pricing rather than assume it won't happen.

What does "data residency" mean in this context?

Data residency refers to legal or contractual requirements that certain data (often client financial or personal data) be stored and processed within a specific jurisdiction, such as the EU or Germany specifically. It matters here because the pool of compliant hosting options within those jurisdictions is shifting.

How does this connect to GDPR compliance?

GDPR governs how personal data is processed and protected, while green data-centre rules govern the environmental performance of the facilities that process it. They're separate frameworks, but both increasingly factor into vendor selection decisions for regulated financial firms.

What is AI Agents & Automation, and how does it relate to this issue?

It refers to building automated workflows and AI-driven agents (for tasks like lead qualification, client communication, or report generation) with an architecture that isn't locked to a single cloud provider or region. This is directly relevant because portability reduces exposure to any one vendor's compliance or capacity issues.

How much does it cost to audit my firm's AI and infrastructure vendor exposure?

This kind of audit typically falls into the Essential tier, starting around $1,000, covering a vendor inventory, region and compliance checklist, and a recommendations report.

How long does a vendor and infrastructure audit take?

For a typical independent advisory practice with a handful of core software vendors, an audit at this scope generally takes one to two weeks, depending on how responsive vendors are to compliance questions.

What's the difference between the Essential, Growth, and Enterprise tiers for this kind of work?

Essential covers the audit and checklist; Growth adds rebuilding one or two AI-dependent workflows with provider portability; Enterprise covers a full automation architecture review across the practice with ongoing support. Most independent practices start at Essential or Growth.

Can I rebuild my existing chatbot or automation tool to be more portable without starting from scratch?

In many cases, yes. Portability often comes from how the integration layer is structured rather than requiring a full rebuild, though the extent of rework depends on how tightly the original tool was built around a specific vendor.

What questions should I ask a new AI vendor before signing a contract?

Ask where data is hosted, whether they have a documented compliance stance on EU/German green data-centre rules, what their contingency plan is if a facility they rely on faces disruption, and whether your data can be exported or migrated easily if needed.

Will this affect the speed or reliability of my client-facing app or website?

It could, if the underlying infrastructure your vendor relies on faces capacity constraints during a compliance-driven transition. Firms that build with portability and monitor vendor communications are better positioned to avoid noticeable disruption.

Is renewable energy sourcing actually required for AI workloads, or just encouraged?

The requirements vary by jurisdiction and facility type, ranging from disclosure obligations to firmer sourcing expectations. The overall direction across German and EU reporting is toward stricter requirements over time rather than voluntary guidance alone.

How does this affect firms that build custom software rather than using off-the-shelf tools?

Firms building custom AI tools or automation have more direct control and should bake provider portability and region awareness into the architecture from the start, rather than retrofitting it later once a vendor issue arises.

What role does waste-heat reuse play in these regulations?

Some jurisdictions are pushing data centres to capture and reuse waste heat from cooling systems, often for district heating or other industrial uses. This adds engineering and infrastructure investment for operators, which is part of why compliant capacity takes time to build.

Should client-facing marketing materials mention our approach to this issue?

If your firm has done the work to understand its vendor and infrastructure posture, briefly mentioning a thoughtful, transparent approach to data governance and sustainability can be a credible differentiator, particularly with institutional or ESG-conscious clients.

How does this compare to concerns about AI energy use in general?

It's related but more specific: broader AI energy-use debates focus on the overall footprint of training and running large models, while these regulations specifically target the operating standards of the physical facilities involved. Both point toward the same practical need for advisors to understand their infrastructure dependencies.

What if my firm doesn't use any AI tools at all yet?

Even without direct AI adoption, your CRM, document storage, and client portal providers are still data-centre customers subject to the same shifting landscape. It's worth understanding their posture regardless of your own AI adoption pace.

Can I ask my IT provider to handle this instead of doing it myself?

Yes, and that's often sensible, but the advisor or firm principal should still understand the basic findings well enough to answer client or regulator questions directly rather than deferring entirely.

Is this likely to lead to new financial services regulation specifically?

It's plausible that financial regulators will eventually reference data-centre and infrastructure resilience as part of broader operational risk guidance, but no such specific requirement is confirmed in current reporting. It's reasonable to monitor rather than assume.

How often should we re-audit our vendor infrastructure exposure?

An annual review is a reasonable cadence for most practices, with a lighter check-in whenever you adopt a significant new AI tool or renew a major vendor contract.

What's the risk of doing nothing about this?

The main risks are being caught off guard by a price increase or service disruption you can't explain to clients, and being unable to answer due-diligence questions from institutional clients about where their data lives and how it's protected.

Does moving to a European-only cloud provider solve this problem?

It can help with data residency concerns, but European providers are themselves subject to the same green data-centre compliance pressures, so it doesn't eliminate the underlying dynamic — it just changes which vendor you're depending on.

How do dashboards help track this kind of infrastructure risk?

A well-designed internal dashboard can track which vendors and regions each system relies on, flag upcoming contract renewals, and surface vendor compliance disclosures in one place, rather than leaving that knowledge scattered across email threads.

What's the first concrete step my firm should take this month?

Build a simple spreadsheet or dashboard listing every client-data-touching vendor, its hosting region if known, and whether you've asked about its green data-centre compliance posture. That single step surfaces most of the exposure.

Are AI chatbots on advisory websites specifically at risk here?

Chatbots are one example of a client-facing AI tool that depends on cloud infrastructure, so yes, they're within scope of this audit, particularly if they handle any client information during conversations.

How does this affect firms using AI for compliance document review?

Compliance review tools often process sensitive client and regulatory documents, making their hosting region and data handling practices especially important to verify given both data residency rules and this infrastructure shift.

What's a realistic timeline for the broader industry to adjust to these rules?

Reporting suggests this is a multi-year transition as facilities are built, retrofitted, or phased out, rather than a single compliance deadline. Advisors should expect gradual change rather than a sudden cutover.

Will smaller cloud and AI vendors be affected differently than the big hyperscalers?

Smaller vendors that rent capacity from larger data-centre operators may face less direct compliance burden themselves but are still exposed to whatever pricing or availability changes ripple down from their underlying providers.

How does this intersect with client onboarding processes?

If onboarding involves AI-assisted steps (identity verification, automated risk profiling, document processing), the same vendor and region questions apply, and a smooth onboarding experience shouldn't be compromised by infrastructure transitions happening behind the scenes.

What does "provider portability" actually look like in a real automation build?

In practice, it means designing integrations so the AI model, hosting provider, and business logic are separated rather than tightly coupled, so you can swap the underlying provider without rebuilding the entire workflow from scratch.

Should we be worried about vendor lock-in more broadly because of this?

This is a good moment to reassess vendor lock-in generally, since the same portability principles that protect against green-compliance disruption also protect against price hikes, feature changes, or service discontinuation for unrelated reasons.

Is there a risk that some AI tools become unavailable in certain EU regions?

It's a reasonable possibility if certain facilities face capacity constraints or shutdowns during compliance transitions, though no specific tool discontinuations are documented in current reporting. Monitoring vendor communications is the practical safeguard.

How do I explain this issue to a client who asks about it?

A clear, honest answer along these lines works well: your firm is aware of the shifting data-centre landscape, has reviewed where key vendors host data, and is building new tools with flexibility in mind, without needing to go into deep technical detail.

Does this affect robo-advisory or hybrid advisory models differently than traditional advisory?

Robo-advisory and hybrid models tend to be more infrastructure-intensive by design, since more of the client experience runs through automated systems, so they may feel vendor and region shifts more directly than a traditional relationship-based practice.

What's the relationship between this trend and general ESG reporting obligations for financial firms?

They're distinct frameworks, but a firm already tracking ESG metrics for its own reporting may find it natural to extend similar diligence to its technology vendors' environmental compliance as part of a broader sustainability narrative.

Can this issue affect app store approval or app performance for advisory mobile apps?

Not directly through app store policy, but if backend infrastructure experiences disruption during a vendor's compliance transition, app performance and reliability could be affected, which is why resilient onboarding and backend design matter.

How do I know if my current AI automation is already portable or tightly locked to one vendor?

A quick technical review of your integration architecture — specifically whether business logic is separated from the underlying AI model or hosting calls — will reveal this. If everything is hardcoded to one vendor's specific API in one place, that's a lock-in signal.

Will regulators require disclosure of AI infrastructure hosting to clients in the future?

There's no confirmed requirement for this currently, but given rising client and institutional interest in data governance, it's a reasonable forward-looking possibility that firms should be prepared to address proactively rather than reactively.

What's the biggest misconception advisors have about this trend?

The most common misconception is that this is purely an IT or hyperscaler issue with no relevance to advisory practice itself, when in fact it directly touches cost, compliance, and client trust for any firm using cloud-based tools.

How do I get started if I want outside help with this audit?

The most efficient starting point is a short conversation to map your current vendor stack and AI tool usage, after which a scoped Essential or Growth tier engagement can produce a clear audit and prioritized action plan.

Is it worth waiting to see how the regulations settle before doing anything?

Waiting means losing visibility into your own exposure in the meantime, and the audit itself is a low-cost, low-risk first step regardless of how the regulations eventually settle, so there's little reason to delay it specifically.