I had a catch-up call with Phil Bray last month, and we discussed many topics, but one key point was the challenges firms face when implementing a financial planning service.

Phil said, “James, could you write a blog about this topic?” and I said, “Of course, leave it with me”.

For context, I used to run a financial planning company and went through the pain and learnings of moving from transactional advice to providing financial planning as a service.

The main problem we spoke about, and I’ll explore here, is where firm owners have decided to transition to offering financial planning as a service to all clients, yet they see patchy commitment from their advice team.

Advisers tend to respond in one of three ways.

Some take to financial planning like ducks to water. Some sit on the fence, unconvinced but not openly opposed. Others actively push back. They don’t believe in it, they question it, and over time, they can make it much harder for the firm to move forward.

The result is a gap between what the firm says it does and what some clients actually experience. That’s a problem.

Why advisers resist financial planning

When firms try to move towards a planning-led service, adviser resistance tends to show up in repeatable ways:

• “I don’t really believe in cashflow modelling”
• “Most clients just want investment advice”
• “My value is in portfolio construction”
• “Clients won’t pay for this”
• “It’s too complex”.

My business used to operate within a network, and I’d heard many of these and similar excuses from advisers over the years.

Excuses aren’t usually about advisers being difficult. In many cases, they stem from a lack of confidence in delivering financial planning.

Discussing technical aspects of advice is familiar ground.

Leading a planning conversation requires different skills: asking broader questions, dealing with uncertainty, and helping clients think about trade-offs over time. If advisers don’t feel capable of doing that, avoidance is a very natural response. Who wants to be outside their comfort zone and risk looking incompetent in front of a client?

What clients value from advice

One of the most essential things firm owners need to understand is how clients define value.

Research from Vanguard and the International Longevity Centre suggests that around 53% of the value clients get from financial advice comes from emotional outcomes, not technical ones.

That includes things like:

• A sense of progress towards meaningful goals
• Less worry about making the wrong decision
• Reduced uncertainty about the future
• Confidence they’re on track.

A common scenario I used to see was clients earning good money, with surplus cash building up, but with no real idea what to do with it. They’re worried about making mistakes, missing opportunities, and whether they’re saving enough for retirement.

The thing is that those concerns aren’t solved by selling them a pension or recommending an investment portfolio.

You can put the money somewhere, but the client still doesn’t know if they’re “okay”. They take your advice, but still, they are left with the worry. That is exactly what financial planning is meant to address.

By building a financial plan and using cashflow modelling properly, advisers can show, based on reasonable assumptions, how current choices affect long-term outcomes. Done well, this reduces worry, eases fear of making a mistake, and gives clients confidence that they’re moving in the right direction.

If that doesn’t happen, those emotional needs remain unmet. Clients don’t always articulate this, but they feel it. And eventually, many of them meet another adviser who can help them achieve those emotional outcomes. That’s often when firms lose good clients, even if investment performance has been acceptable.

Why explaining the benefits isn’t enough

Most firm owners have already explained all of this to their advisers.

Firm owners who have decided to offer financial planning as a service “get it”. What they’re up against is behaviour change.

The COM-B model is a behavioural science model which explains the factors required for behaviour change, and using it, we can understand why advisers might be resistant:

• Capability – Do advisers have the skills to ask planning-led questions and lead these conversations confidently?
• Opportunity – Do time pressures and incentives support planning, or do they reward status quo behaviour?
• Motivation – Do advisers genuinely believe in planning, see it as part of their role, and feel rewarded by doing it?

If any one of these is missing, behaviour is unlikely to change.

The influence of the “sceptical adviser”

I remember watching the film “12 Angry Men” in a lesson at school.

The film was used to explain how much influence one voice can have on a group. If you haven’t seen it, it’s a classic courtroom drama where Henry Fonda challenges the thinking of jurors deliberating over a guilty/not guilty decision. In many firms, this dynamic is at play: one adviser who is openly sceptical of financial planning.

They talk, and their views carry weight. They reinforce doubts among advisers who are already unsure or lacking confidence. They permit people to stay on the fence. Over time, this makes leading change significantly harder and leaves managing directors feeling worn out.

This is often underestimated, but culture plays a leading role in the successful implementation of a financial planning proposition.

Conduct issue?

If a firm’s stated proposition is that clients receive initial and/or ongoing financial planning for a fee, but some advisers consistently fail to deliver that service, it raises uncomfortable questions.

If you employ advisers, or even if they are self-employed, and your terms of business state that you offer financial planning, yet your advisers don’t deliver it, is that a conduct issue? Yes.

Clients pay based on what they believe they are receiving. If the service delivered doesn’t match that description, firms may find themselves exposed to complaints or regulatory scrutiny. Adviser scepticism is unlikely to be seen as a reasonable defence.

This is one of the reasons some firm owners eventually reach the end of their patience. Inconsistency creates risk to clients and to the business.

Making the hard decisions

Not every adviser is suited to working in a planning-led firm. That doesn’t make them bad advisers, but it does mean there may no longer be a good fit.

For employed advisers, this usually requires being very clear about what the role involves and what’s expected in client meetings. If those expectations aren’t met, it needs to be treated as a performance issue, not a philosophical debate.

For self-employed advisers, it requires an honest decision about whether they belong in the business you’re trying to build. Keeping someone who doesn’t believe in the proposition can undermine everyone else.

Letting go is uncomfortable, but carrying the wrong person is often worse.

It can prevent you from achieving your business goals and delivering the great client outcomes you aim to provide.

Final thought

The firms that succeed in delivering financial planning consistently do so by being clear about the service they offer, which means understanding the emotional outcomes clients seek.

If you can articulate the client’s problem effectively, you will find it easy for clients to seek you out when they want that problem solved. And clients will pay for advice which meets their emotional needs. Think back to the example of the clients worried about the risk of making a mistake or worrying about saving enough for retirement – the value of the advice is the reduction of their current concerns.

They will pay for that.

Successful firms also help build their advisers’ confidence and skills to deliver financial planning.

Rather than leaving advisers to it, best practice is to provide training, including role-plays and opportunities to hone skills without the pressure of a client in the room. However, psychological research is clear on this: confidence only comes once we are competent at something. Meaning we have to go through the painful experience of trying something new and being outside our comfort zone.

Firms should offer support and understanding to help their team commit to doing things differently, even if it means feeling uncomfortable in the short term.

If this feels familiar, you’re not alone. The frustration you’re feeling is usually a sign that the problem runs deeper than tools or training and needs to be approached differently.

I hope this blog has given you some ideas.