Around 70 financial planners attended the event, which was hosted by UBS. This meeting format was a departure from the norm as we threw the floor open to financial planners to ask questions and engage in healthy debate with our guests. And debate they did!

Whilst Paul and Bruce have very different views on how client risk tolerance should be measured and indeed mapped to the right investment solution, there was still much they agreed upon.

{desktop}{/desktop}{mobile}{/mobile}


Paul emphasised the the importance of getting informed consent from clients and preparing them for potential downside in their portfolios. This can be achieved by showing clients the maximum drawdowns and the timescale it took for the top to bottom and back to the top. As Paul puts it, clients should never be surprised, because planners should take the time to prepare them for the potential worst case scenario.

Bruce highlighted the need to understand risk from a client's point of view and the challenges of mapping clients' risk tolerance to the appropriate investment solution. While volatility is commonly used as the proxy for investment risk, it fails to account for what is likely to be the main concern of most clients - the risk of a shortfall in the amount required to meet their objectives.

Delegates expressed a range of views on the subject and everyone had a chance to get their points across, thanks to the excellent work by the moderator of the the day, Graeme Price of UBS.


{desktop}{/desktop}{mobile}{/mobile}

The debate continued over drinks and nibbles supplied by our excellent host UBS, as planners gathered in smaller groups to exchange views.
I understand that after the meeting ended, a few members including our past Branch Chair Dennis Hall, IFP Event Committee member Tina Weeks and others continued the 'debate' with Paul Resnik over a late dinner at a nearby Japanese noodle bar!
Not sure if that's an indication of how much branch members love hanging out together or how interesting the subject of risk profiling was!