The information gathered during client meetings can have a significant impact on the quality of research and suitability reports. Elly Dowding and Lee Coates OBE of In Accord and the Accord Initiative explore how better client conversations can lead to clearer, more actionable evidence for paraplanners.
The quality of a suitability rationale is limited by the quality of the client evidence behind it. One adviser’s experience shows how a simple change before the meeting can give paraplanners clearer, richer and more usable information.
Paraplanners can only work with the evidence on file. If the record says ‘no ESG preference’ or ‘interested in sustainable investing’, it may look complete while leaving some important questions unanswered.
Did the client understand the range of investment approaches? Have they been given time to think? Does ‘no investment preference’ represent an informed decision, or was the client responding to an unfamiliar subject introduced only moments earlier?
If a preference was expressed, is there enough detail to use it in research and explain its influence on the investment recommendation?
As a recent guest on the Accord Talks podcast, available from In Accord, Craig Gahagan, a Chartered Financial Adviser at Acuma Wealth, described how his firm improved the information behind those answers.
His central finding should interest every paraplanner: ‘The biggest change wasn’t necessarily the questions we were asking; it was the quality of the answers we were receiving.’
The change that produced those answers was straightforward. Clients now receive balanced information on conventional and sustainable investment approaches before the meeting ,rather than encountering the subject for the first time during it.
Clients could read the information, think about what mattered to them, and arrive with their own questions. Craig found that the conversation became more meaningful and responses more considered and detailed. In his words: ‘Better-informed clients tend to give better-informed answers.’
A considered response can distinguish a broad preference from a specific investment approach.
It can show whether a client wants to avoid particular sectors, support certain themes or simply understand the available choices before confirming that, ultimately, financial considerations remain their main priority.
That distinction affects research, product comparison, portfolio rationale and the way the recommendation is explained.
It also supports an outcome-neutral process. Craig stresses that whether a client chooses a conventional, ethical or sustainability-focused approach ‘isn’t really the point’.
What matters is that the decision is informed and aligned with the client’s views and priorities.
That’s important when the client decides not to invest sustainably. A clear record showing the options were understood and considered is more useful than an uninformed ‘no investment preferences’ approach.
It allows paraplanners to be certain that the client’s position was established through informed understanding rather than simply assumed.
The same applies when sustainability does matter. A generic label such as ‘ethical’ rarely provides enough information for meaningful research.
The file needs to indicate what the client means, how strongly the preference is held, where there may be competing priorities and what trade-offs were discussed.
Not all clients require that level of detail. Most have broader preferences, while a smaller number want specific exclusions or themes.
A proportionate framework can accommodate both and help paraplanners judge when clarification is needed.
Craig’s experience highlights another issue that benefits paraplanners: the difference between an adviser having a good conversation and a firm having a repeatable process.
Before his firm’s process review, discussions were taking place but could vary between advisers. The revised approach introduced consistent client communication, core steps and documentation, supported by training and internal guardrails.
The aim wasn’t to make every conversation identical, but to ensure every client received the same opportunity to understand and express their investment preferences.
Paraplanners will often identify thin preference notes, inconsistent terminology or rationales that cannot be traced to the client’s own words. Their feedback is therefore important to embedding a good process within the advice firm.
A strong file should reveal a clear progression. The client received appropriate information. The adviser explored their understanding and priorities. The outcome was recorded with enough detail to be usable. Research considered the preferences where relevant. The recommendation reflected the client’s decision, or explained any limitations or compromises. The suitability report then communicated that reasoning clearly.
Better evidence reduces guesswork, focuses research and strengthens the link between fact-find, recommendation and report. It also demonstrates why the outcome was appropriate, whether sustainable investment formed part of it or not.
Craig says the documentation and educational materials were relatively straightforward to build once the firm had identified what good looked like, and the free to access tools on the Accord Initiative web site helped with developing the new process.
The harder part was consistent implementation. His distinction is useful: ‘That’s the difference between having a process and having a process that genuinely changes client outcomes.’
He rejects the idea that this is purely compliance work: ‘Don’t think of it as a compliance project. Think of it as a client outcomes project.’
The compliance benefit follows because the firm can evidence how preferences are identified and recorded.
For paraplanners, the best test is not whether an investment preference is recorded, it is whether the information is strong enough to support professional judgement.
Can the paraplanner see what the client understood, what mattered to them and why the recommendation fits?
Craig’s experience suggests that improving those answers need not require a major redesign. Sometimes the most effective change is to begin the conversation earlier – and give the client time to arrive ready for it.
This is also why the firm decided to apply for the Client Preference Ready Badge and why this has value beyond simply showing it on a website.
Craig sees it as both an external signal to clients and an internal standard against which the firm can hold itself accountable. It does not indicate that clients will be directed towards sustainable investments.
It indicates that their preferences will be explored properly and taken seriously – whatever those preferences turn out to be.
Main image: office, desk, amy-hirschi-szrJ3wjzOMg-unsplash
