You will be able to spot the file faults that most often turn a good meeting into a finding.
Most file findings do not come from bad advice. They come from good meetings written up badly: a representative who asked the right questions, explained everything clearly and recommended something sensible, then wrote it all down in a rush at the end of a long week. The reviewer cannot see the good meeting. They can only see the file. This lesson covers the faults that most often turn one into a finding, and the habit that prevents most of them.
The most common fault is a rationale that could belong to any client. "Client wants protection for family. Recommended plan provides good coverage at an affordable premium." Every word might be true. None of it is about this client.
Copy-pasted rationales often start innocently. A representative writes a good one, saves it, and reuses it with small edits for the next client. After a few months, the edits get smaller and the rationale stops describing anyone. To a reviewer, a generic rationale reads as if no thinking was done, even when it was.
The fix is to make every rationale contain things only this client's file could contain: their name for their goal, their numbers, the specific feature that answers their specific need. Compare: "Hafiz and Nadia's top concern is keeping the flat if Hafiz cannot work. Term cover with total and permanent disability, sum assured covering the outstanding mortgage and ten years of the household shortfall they calculated. Premium of S$200 a month, about 9 percent of their surplus." That sentence could not be pasted into another file.
The second fault is a file that shows one product and nothing else. The representative may have compared three options in the meeting, discussed them with the client and chosen the best fit. If the file does not say so, the reviewer has to assume no alternatives were considered.
Missing alternatives are especially damaging because they make the recommendation look like a product looking for a client. The fix is a short paragraph listing what else you considered, including doing nothing, and one reason for setting each aside. Two or three lines are usually enough.
The third fault is the most serious, because it suggests the process ran backwards. Sometimes a representative recommends a product in the meeting, then completes the fact-find afterwards from memory, and fills it in to support what was sold.
These fact-finds tend to give themselves away. The figures are round. The objectives are phrased in the language of the product brochure. And they often contradict other records: the meeting notes mention a dependant the fact-find does not, or the cash flow in the fact-find does not match the affordability figure in the recommendation. A reviewer comparing the two sees the contradiction at once.
The fix is to complete the fact-find in the meeting, or from notes taken in the meeting, before the recommendation is written. If something was missed and you find out later, add it as a dated follow-up note. Never quietly adjust the original.
Behind all three faults is the same cause: time between the meeting and the write-up. A file written the same day draws on fresh memory of what the client said, in their 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.
So the single most useful habit is to write the file on the day of the meeting, while you still remember the conversation. Block the 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 now books his meetings with a half-hour gap after each one and writes the file in a coffee shop before going home. His files have become shorter and more specific at the same time.
Spotting a weak sentence is easier than avoiding one. Here is a typical example and its rewrite.
Weak: "Client's risk profile is balanced, so recommended a balanced fund."
Stronger: "Ravi's questionnaire result was balanced. When asked about past behaviour, he said he held his investments through a fall some years ago without selling, which is consistent. He does not expect to need this money for at least ten years. Recommended a diversified balanced fund via monthly investment, rather than a lump sum, because his emergency fund is not yet complete and he wants to keep cash available."
The second version is longer, but every extra word is evidence. It shows the result was tested, the time horizon was known, and the method of investing was chosen for a reason that came from the fact-find.
In the activity below you take three practice or anonymised files and do the same for one weak sentence in each, replacing it with reasoning that could only belong to that client.
Find one weak sentence in each of three practice or anonymised files and rewrite it with case-specific reasoning.
Junxiong-WFG Organisation is an authorised representative of AIA Financial Advisers Private Limited (Reg. No. 201715016G).