"Breadcrumbs handle my internal linking."

"Breadcrumbs handle my internal linking."

Sorry, they handle one narrow slice of it.

The comparison: structural links (breadcrumbs, nav, footer) versus contextual links (in-body, in-content). Structural links are sitewide, templated, and identical on every page — so Google heavily discounts them. They establish hierarchy. They do not pass meaningful, topic-specific relevance.

Contextual links — a sentence in your body linking a related guide — are unique, surrounded by relevant text, and carry the anchor and context that actually move a target page. That's the lever.

So breadcrumbs are great for what they're for: they tell Google and users the page's place in the tree, they earn the breadcrumb rich result, they reduce orphans. But a page propped up only by breadcrumbs and nav has zero editorial votes. It's in the building with no one vouching for it.

The fix isn't more breadcrumbs. It's one good in-content link from a relevant, already-strong page.

(Footer link to your money page "for the equity" — discounted to roughly nothing. You know this. Move it into the body.)