Planning risk is evolving. Suitability also now depends whether client understanding, values and investment reality remain aligned over time. Elly Dowding and Lee Coates OBE, Directors at In Accord and the Accord Initiative. explore this further in their latest opinion-based article for Professional Paraplanner.
Paraplanning has always been built on precision. Strong research. Structured comparisons. Clear rationale.
But a new risk is emerging, one that sits beyond technical accuracy. It is now entirely possible to produce a recommendation that is well-researched, well-documented and technically suitable… and still deliver an outcome that does not feel right to the client.
The expectation gap in research
Traditional due diligence focuses on measurable factors:
- risk and return
- cost and structure
- mandate and governance
These remain essential. But they do not capture how a client will experience the recommendation. A solution may align perfectly to data points, yet create issues if:
- the client does not fully understand how it behaves
- expectations differ from reality
- values-based considerations are not fully reflected
This is not a technical failure – but it does point toward alignment failure.
From input data to lived experience
The challenge for paraplanners is that suitability is no longer defined solely by inputs. Risk scores, time horizons and objectives still matter – but they do not fully represent how a client thinks, behaves or reacts.
Clients interpret recommendations through their own perspective and that interpretation shapes expectations. If research does not consider that, it creates a gap between the recommendation and the eventual experience.
Values as a core research input
One of the most significant changes is the role of values. For many clients, particularly younger investors, these are central to decision-making. They influence not just what clients want to avoid, but what they expect their investments to achieve. This introduces a more complex research requirement.
It is not enough to identify whether a solution has ESG or ethical characteristics. The question becomes:
Does this solution align with what the client actually believes — and what they expect as a result?
Clarity is critical:
- what is included and excluded
- what the strategy is designed to achieve
- what outcomes are realistically possible
Without that clarity, expectation mismatch becomes more likely.
Managing expectations within the recommendation
Client-led investing introduces another layer. Allocating capital in line with values may marginally influence fund design and market direction. But it does not guarantee direct or immediate real-world outcomes. For paraplanners, this creates a subtle responsibility.
Recommendations should not rely on assumptions the client may be making about impact. The rationale must reflect how the investment actually works, not how it might be perceived.
Alignment over time – not just at recommendation
Even where the initial recommendation is well aligned, there is a risk of drift. Client values can evolve. Markets change. Investment approaches adapt. Without ongoing engagement, the original alignment can weaken.
This means research must consider not just whether a solution is suitable today, but whether it is likely to remain aligned over time.
Explainability as part of due diligence
Paraplanning moves beyond analysis into interpretation.
Key questions now include:
- Can this solution be clearly explained?
- Will the client understand how it behaves in different conditions?
- Is there a risk that expectations differ from reality?
- And, critically; has the adviser provided enough information to support the due diligence decision making?
If a recommendation cannot be explained in a way that aligns with client understanding, the strength of the suitability case is reduced.
Evidencing the chain
The file must demonstrate a clear link:
- what the client values and expects
- how that was interpreted in research
- why the solution was selected
- how alignment will be maintained
Where that link is visible, the rationale strengthens. Where it is implied, it weakens.
Structuring the process
This is where structured approaches are becoming more valuable. Firms are increasingly adopting consistent and structured frameworks to:
- capture client preferences and values
- integrate them into research
- revisit them over time
The Accord Initiative Client Preference Ready (CPR) badge and Preference Toolkit support this by focusing on the process – ensuring that client understanding is clearly recorded and consistently reflected.
For paraplanners, this provides a clearer foundation for research and recommendation.
The direction of travel
Paraplanning has always been central to suitability. It is now also central to alignment.
As expectations evolve, the role of research is expanding – from technical validation to ensuring that recommendations can be understood, experienced and maintained by the client over time.
The strongest files will not just show what was suitable. They will show why it remains suitable from the client’s perspective.
These themes are explored in more depth in a recent Accord Talks podcast episode.
In Accord and the Accord Initiative, provides free-to-access education, resources, and compliance support to the financial advice sector.
Main image: markus-winkler-jOkfw6YfRGs-unsplash
