This time of year is always our busiest. We complete annual reviews for all clients in the first quarter (Q1) through a process we call surge meetings.
We review the previous calendar-year performance, update their financial plan through Voyant and discuss tax-year-end top-ups/withdrawals and changes for the year ahead.
We then write up the annual letters of suitability and proceed to implement the advice discussed, or move towards the next tax year if there is nothing new.
I’m sure most advice firms have a similar process, if not all at the same time in the year. It does cause us some stresses and some capacity challenges, but it enables the rest of our year to be more focused on different elements of the business. That may be new marketing initiatives, prospecting for new clients, updating software and processes, etcetera.
Clients want us to make their life easier — not put more pressure on them
It also allows us more time to develop the business without the distraction of annual reviews every month.
Our focus for Q2 2025 is artificial intelligence, and in my next column I’ll share what we’ve learned and what tools we’re playing with.
We’re already using Otter AI for meeting notes, which has been really useful. Next, we want a process that can build our annual-review packs with limited manual intervention. We have a template, but how can we cut down team time in building these packs…?
This is surely common sense. You can’t charge for something you never deliver
Anyway, that’s for next quarter.
Busy lives
I have written about surge meetings previously, so I won’t go into the pros and cons here. I started with this as a precursor for today’s topic.
During the annual-review process, as usual there have been some clients who, for whatever reason, have been difficult to see or get hold of. There are always clients like this and it’s not always the same few, although some are undoubtedly perennial slow goers.
It was good to see our regulator acting like the adult in the room
This year, though, knowing that the Financial Conduct Authority has been looking into the ongoing-advice process for some of our larger counterparts, we’ve spent more time thinking through a process for what happens to those people who don’t want, or can’t have, an annual review from one year to the next.
In the financial planning circles I mix in, there has been a fair amount of fearmongering around redress and potential issues for firms of all shapes and sizes if annual reviews haven’t been completed and charges issued. So, it was good to see that the initial findings of the FCA review show that most firms do complete annual reviews.
And, for those that don’t get them done, there is usually a pretty good reason, along with details of why it hasn’t happened!
I don’t want to be told what to charge or how to charge it
This feels like a common-sense win to me. Not all clients need a full review every year.
A lot of our clients are in the busiest period of their life right now. They have young children, ageing parents, thriving businesses, additional costs from the Autumn Budget and rate rises, etcetera.
They entrust us to help them and to manage assets for them, but to be available on their schedule when they have issues.
They also want us to make their life easier — not put more pressure on them.
Earning our keep
Of course, if we never saw our clients — didn’t check in with them, update their plan, find out what had changed or provide ongoing advice — and if we charged handsomely for doing none of this, I should expect to have an issue.
As usual there have been some clients who, for whatever reason, have been difficult to see or get hold of
Again, this is surely common sense. You can’t charge for something you never deliver.
I was pleased to see the regulator outlining that it understood the position of clients and firms on this. It felt refreshing to hear a common-sense approach in a world where this seems to happen less and less often. Hopefully, it can continue.
I know the FCA is looking at fees and adviser charging through the Consumer Duty. I feel it’s a good thing for our profession that firms provide clear charging and service propositions to match.
I don’t want to be told what to charge or how to charge it, though. I want us to remain a free-market society where clients decide if they’re happy to pay for the services we provide to them, and get to leave if they change their mind.
We’re already using Otter AI for meeting notes. Next, we want a process that can build our annual-review packs
I like rules that make sense, or at least rules where I understand why they’ve been put in place.
It was good to see our regulator acting like the adult in the room, and I hope for more of the same in the year ahead.
Sam Sloma is a chartered financial planner
This article featured in the April 2025 edition of Money Marketing.
If you would like to subscribe to the monthly magazine, please click here.
