I'm unsure as to which sub-forum matters relating to financial adviser etiquette should be place in, so I put this here for the time being.
Picture the scene of a financial adviser's comfortable though reasonably modest client-consultation office.
In strides Mr/Ms Notable. Courtesies are exchanged and the client quickly gets down to the nub of their immediate issue - whether they can manage to buy a more expensive seafront house as their true "forever home". A price is mentioned for the house in question. Rather than wait for the inevitable follow-up signalled by the FA's eyebrows, the client says that the auctioneer has assured them that this is a "firm" guide price.
Now, the FA know the client's means and expenses intimately after near 10 years of active management. A few years back while their career in sport/supermodelling was on the boil this would have been a straight "go". Those days are gone however and the FA knows well that this client cannot service the likely mortgage on such a house, never mind the personalised refurbishments wealthy people tend to indulge in.
Yet the FA also know their client. So the FA affects an air of wrestling with a complexity, having to check the "exact figures and trends" on their client's many investments and accounts and launches a huge Percy Montgomery kick for touch: please give me a few days and I'll see how things are.
Of course that kick for touch will only delay the inevitable. The client will likely read it as a sign that the new house plan is on. But - bearing in mind that FAs depend on a limited number of wealthy people for their anchor clientele - do FAs really fear that a straight "No!" to a well-to-do client going beyond their means will inevitably result in that client dumping them as their FA ? Are FAs in this situation going to act like salesmen with a poor customer and try to guide them round to something that they can afford ?
Picture the scene of a financial adviser's comfortable though reasonably modest client-consultation office.
In strides Mr/Ms Notable. Courtesies are exchanged and the client quickly gets down to the nub of their immediate issue - whether they can manage to buy a more expensive seafront house as their true "forever home". A price is mentioned for the house in question. Rather than wait for the inevitable follow-up signalled by the FA's eyebrows, the client says that the auctioneer has assured them that this is a "firm" guide price.
Now, the FA know the client's means and expenses intimately after near 10 years of active management. A few years back while their career in sport/supermodelling was on the boil this would have been a straight "go". Those days are gone however and the FA knows well that this client cannot service the likely mortgage on such a house, never mind the personalised refurbishments wealthy people tend to indulge in.
Yet the FA also know their client. So the FA affects an air of wrestling with a complexity, having to check the "exact figures and trends" on their client's many investments and accounts and launches a huge Percy Montgomery kick for touch: please give me a few days and I'll see how things are.
Of course that kick for touch will only delay the inevitable. The client will likely read it as a sign that the new house plan is on. But - bearing in mind that FAs depend on a limited number of wealthy people for their anchor clientele - do FAs really fear that a straight "No!" to a well-to-do client going beyond their means will inevitably result in that client dumping them as their FA ? Are FAs in this situation going to act like salesmen with a poor customer and try to guide them round to something that they can afford ?