Spot the file faults that most often turn a good meeting into a finding.
Daniel is a representative who books client meetings with a half-hour gap after each one and writes the file in a coffee shop before going home. Daniel's files have since become shorter and more specific at the same time.
Most file findings do not come from bad advice. They come from good meetings that were written up badly. In a typical case the representative asked the right questions, explained clearly and recommended something sensible, then wrote it all up in a rush at the end of a long week. The reviewer cannot see the meeting. They can only see the file, so the file has to show your thinking. Three faults cause most findings, and one habit prevents most of them.
A generic rationale could belong to any client and contains nothing specific to this client's file. It is the most common fault. A typical one says the client wants protection for the family, and the plan gives good coverage at an affordable premium. Every word may be true, but none of it is about this client.
Copy-pasted rationales often start innocently. You write a good rationale, save it, and reuse it with small edits. Over a few months the edits shrink until the rationale describes nobody. A reviewer reads a generic rationale as a sign that no thinking was done, even when thinking was done.
To fix it, put things in the rationale that only this client's file could contain. That means the client's own name for their goal, their numbers, and the specific feature that answers their specific need. Take Hafiz and Nadia (an invented example). Their top concern is keeping the flat if Hafiz cannot work. The recommendation is term cover with total and permanent disability. The sum assured covers the outstanding mortgage plus ten years of the household shortfall they calculated. The premium is S$200 a month, about 9 percent of their surplus. You could not paste that rationale into another client's file.
Missing alternatives means the file shows only the recommended product, with no record of the other options you considered or why you set each one aside. You may have compared three options in the meeting and talked them through with the client. The reviewer still has to assume you considered no alternatives unless the file says so. This fault does particular damage because the recommendation then looks like a product looking for a client.
To fix it, add a short paragraph listing what else you considered, including doing nothing, with one reason for setting each aside. Two or three lines are usually enough.
A fact-find written after the recommendation is one filled in from memory after the sale, to support what was sold. It is the most serious of the three faults because it suggests the process ran backwards. It usually happens like this: you recommend a product in the meeting, then complete the fact-find later from memory, and it ends up shaped around what was sold.
A reviewer looks for these signs:
The figures are round. The objectives use the language of the product brochure. It contradicts other records. For example, the meeting notes mention a dependant the fact-find leaves out, or the fact-find cash flow does not match the affordability figure in the recommendation.
A reviewer comparing the records spots a contradiction like that at once. Complete the fact-find in the meeting, or from notes taken in the meeting, and write the recommendation only after the fact-find is complete. If you missed something and it comes to light later, add it as a dated follow-up note. Never quietly change the original.
All three faults share one cause: the time gap between the meeting and the write-up. A file written the same day draws on fresh memory of what the client said, in the client's own words. A file written a week later draws on a general impression, and general impressions produce generic rationales, missing alternatives and fact-finds that fit the outcome.
The most useful habit is to write the file on the day of the meeting. Block time in your calendar straight after each client meeting, even if it is only thirty minutes, and treat it as part of the meeting. Daniel's half-hour gap and the coffee shop stop are one way to do this.
Spotting a weak sentence is easier than avoiding one, so practise on real files. Ravi had a file saying the client's risk profile was balanced, so a balanced fund was recommended. That sentence would fit any client with a balanced result.
The stronger version records what actually happened. Ravi's questionnaire result was balanced. When asked about past behaviour, Ravi said they had held their investments through a market fall some years ago without selling, which is consistent with the result. Ravi does not expect to need the money for at least ten years. The recommendation is a diversified balanced fund through monthly investment rather than a lump sum, because Ravi's emergency fund is not yet complete and Ravi wants to keep cash available.
The rewrite is longer than the weak sentence. A longer rationale is fine as long as every extra word is evidence. This one shows three things: the risk-profile result was tested against past behaviour, the time horizon was known, and the method of investing was chosen for a reason taken from the fact-find. To rewrite any weak sentence, replace the generic claim with that kind of evidence: how the result was tested, the time horizon, and reasons from the fact-find for both the product and the method.
Now take three practice or anonymised files. In each one, find one weak sentence and replace it with reasoning that could only belong to that client.
Pick three practice or anonymised files, find one weak sentence in each and rewrite it with reasoning specific to that client.
Junxiong-WFG Organisation is an authorised representative of AIA Financial Advisers Private Limited (Reg. No. 201715016G).