We lost a client recently to another adviser. Which, is highly unusual! I think it is the first time where we haven't recommended a client finds an adviser (or we have suggested one to them) that is more suited to what they want.

I realise, we are not for everyone and when we first meet people we aim to get across how we work and how we will present our advice as early as possible and with the ability to walk away without charge, so that this is less likely to happen.

They had elected for a dual advice approach because they felt some kind of loyalty to the existing adviser and thought that they would get better ideas from two advisers and be able to put them together to get better results. Instead, it resulted in confusion and higher overall charges.

How this came to pass

We met a few years ago and I was aware at the time that he had another adviser that had been with a number of years. My approach in the past, when confronted with this, is to accept it and then hope our excellent service leads to us becoming the sole adviser. I am an easy going character and I recognize it can be scary to commit to us all in one giant leap, so I have been happy with this.

We have talked several times where I have compared what the existing adviser is doing and these were the results:

• Overall costs - 2% a year compared to 1.25%

• Invested at a lower level of risk than should be, this has led to significantly lower returns than should have received.

• Invested in tax wrappers that mean are paying more tax than they should (e.g. £0!)

• Their investments take advantage of "global pool of investment talent' - which academic evidence shows doesn't exist.

• They were an adviser that were a 'restricted' firm and not 'independent' like us.

• Of least concern is investment performance as there is not great control over that, and comparison of that told me that our recommended investments, when risk adjusted, had performed better.

What went against us?

Our advice fee is 0.85% a year compared to 0.50% but that is included in the total cost comparison indicated above of 2% v 1.25%.

Also, we are a small company, which may have been a concern, compared to a national advice firm I can understand why there may be an initial preference for the larger option.

Long term trust

Based purely on the evidence, there is no way they should have left us for them.  Putting aside the rather large facial features I have, the stale miasma that surrounds me, the irritating high pitched nasal whine I emit and the cruddy jokes that I would normally assume are responsible for people not wishing to see me again, I can only assume the reason was due to having a longer term relationship and felt they were more trustworthy, as they discounted the rational facts I presented.

Pretty much every argument in choosing between us is accounted for in the above. I told an investment analyst about this and they said:

'The net end balance will be significantly less under the “global talent pool of investment”, the evidence shows. Bid them a farewell as you can only lead a horse to water Steve! 👋'

Why does this hurt so much?

I find it incredibly hard to have the 'lead a horse to water' attitude and shrug it off. I have to say, it was like a punch in the guts. I don't know why. You don't have my aforementioned physical and character traits without having extensive experience of being dumped! Even my wife dumped me when we first met!

The loss of this client doesn't make a big difference to our firm monetarily. I'll certainly miss our meetings as I enjoyed their company.

I think it is the fact that I know, to the core of my bones, that they are going to be significantly worse off in the longer term because of it. It really gets my hackles up and I don't like it.

What to do instead in situations with two advisers?

I think that I am not going to get in this situation again. It hurts me too much emotionally and I'd rather not have to go through that. I am not sure I can 'lighten up' enough not to feel it. There are some that say you would not expect a battlefield commander to only be in charge of half their troops, and so as an adviser you should look after all the money, or none of it. I think I am coming around to that.

Having one adviser is the best solution as:

• You have one plan, all the money works towards making that plan work

• As all under our advice, costs will be lower than being managed by two plus advisers due to economy of scale

• An investment plan with two advisers may have competing interests... all the money should be moving in one coherent direction.

• Things will certainly get completed more efficiently, with less conflict and thought.