Financial advisers spend their working lives guiding others. They help clients set goals, avoid mistakes and secure their futures.
But when it comes to their own money, who guides the advisers? Do they chart their own course, trusting their training and instincts? Or do they, like many of their clients, turn to someone else for reassurance and discipline?
It sounds like a simple question. In reality, it opens up a revealing debate about trust, objectivity and professional identity.
The thought first came to me during an editorial meeting. What started as a casual musing quickly became a lively discussion. One colleague compared advisers to doctors, who are barred from prescribing their own medication.
Another framed it as a classic case of “do as I say, not as I do”. A third reminded us that behind every professional role sits a human being, vulnerable to the same biases, blind spots and time pressures as anyone else.
Some advisers insist on managing their own portfolios, seeing it as a natural extension of their professional skills
Among readers too, this question stirs debate. Should advisers, armed with knowledge and experience, be expected to steer their own ship? Or does recognising their limits and outsourcing mark not weakness, but wisdom?
A colleague of mine pushed the conversation in another direction. He wanted to know not only how advisers manage their money today, but also the mistakes they made before entering the profession.
For example, what errors left scars? Which ones shaped their approach in later years? That piece is still in the works, and I suspect the answers will be fascinating.
For now, the focus stays on the central dilemma. Some advisers insist on managing their own portfolios, seeing it as a natural extension of their professional skills.
Others outsource to fellow advisers, citing the need for objectivity, limited time or simply a desire for a second opinion.
Clients often draw confidence from knowing their adviser invests in the same funds or products they recommend
John Richards, a retired adviser and long-standing Money Marketing reader, told me he mostly looked after his own investments.
“When I was an adviser, I handled my own affairs. Afterwards, I relied on an IFA who was just setting up on his own. We had been colleagues at a brokerage that went bust,” he says.
His experience shows how fluid these choices can be. Early in their careers, advisers may relish the chance to practise what they preach. Later, as life grows busier or perspective shifts, many begin to value a trusted colleague’s input.
The decision carries symbolic weight. Clients often draw confidence from knowing their adviser invests in the same funds or products they recommend. It signals alignment, shared risk and a degree of “skin in the game”.
As a client, I would take comfort from the idea that my adviser walks the same path they are asking me to tread.
Yet the opposite can also raise questions. If an adviser refuses to be their own client, sceptics may wonder why. If they do not believe in their own strategy enough to apply it personally, why should others?
Weekend Essay: Are we getting dumber because of AI?
But here lies a danger of oversimplification. Advisers’ personal risk profiles rarely mirror those of their clients. A young adviser in their thirties may favour a high-growth portfolio unsuited to a retiree. Outsourcing or separating personal finances from professional recommendations, in this case, is not hypocrisy. It is prudence.
Time is another crucial factor. Advisers often devote so much energy to clients that their own needs fall down the list. Richard described it as the “more dripping taps in a plumber’s house” problem: the very skills that generate a livelihood can be neglected at home.
After a long day managing portfolios, the last thing many advisers want is to spend their evenings tinkering with their own. Outsourcing then becomes less about capability and more about preserving sanity.
Psychology also plays its part. Even the most knowledgeable professional is not immune to bias. Overconfidence, loss aversion and the temptation to chase performance affect advisers as much as the clients they serve.
Outsourcing provides a buffer. Another adviser may not eliminate bias entirely, but can at least temper it with perspective and discipline.
The deeper you dig, the clearer it becomes that this is less a question of technical skill and more one of philosophy
The deeper you dig, the clearer it becomes that this is less a question of technical skill and more one of philosophy. Managing one’s own money is not simply a financial choice. It is a statement of identity.
For some advisers, it is proof of competence, evidence that they practise what they preach. For others, entrusting their portfolio to a peer is proof of maturity, a recognition that even experts need distance from their own affairs. Both positions carry weight.
So, who advises the advisers?
There is no universal rule, and perhaps that is the point. Some do it themselves, some call on trusted peers, and many move between the two over the course of their careers.
Their choices reflect not only their circumstances but also their values. And in that variety lies a lesson for all of us.
Financial advice is not one-size-fits-all, not even for the advisers themselves.
