Phil's stricture is not entirely unjustified; you could object that this is loosely expressed. But I don't think it's that bad. Things are only riches if people consider them so; the idea of riches is of attributing value to things. The intrinsic nature of the things themselves, the nature of gold, for example, can't be affected by wisdom. But the nature of the idea of riches, in the sense of the nature of the value we attribute to things that makes them riches, and by extension the nature of the kind of things to which we do or should attribute such value, certainly is affected by wisdom. What the writer means here, I think, is that wisdom must guide us in deciding what things are riches, what things are to be valued.