After more than twenty years in this profession, I’ve seen a lot.
Globally, I’ve seen advisers build extraordinary practices – ones built on genuine trust, long-term relationships, and counsel that genuinely changed families’ lives. I’ve also seen careers built on sand. Practices that looked impressive from the outside but were structurally fragile, ethically compromised, or simply heading slowly in the wrong direction.
The mistakes I’ve seen don’t tend to be dramatic. They’re usually quiet. Incremental. The kind of thing that feels like a reasonable judgement call in the moment and only reveals itself as a mistake much later – when a client leaves without explanation, when a crisis arrives and you discover you’re not equipped for it, or when you look up one day and realise you’ve built something you don’t actually respect.
These are the patterns I’ve seen most often. I share them not to lecture but because I wish someone had shared them with me earlier.
Mistake one: Accepting the wrong clients
The pressure to grow an advice practice is real. Every adviser feels it. And so the temptation when a prospect comes along – especially a wealthy one – is to find a reason to say yes. To manage the concerns you have. To convince yourself that the awkward conversation you had in the first meeting was just nerves, or that the unrealistic expectation they expressed will soften once they experience your service.
It usually doesn’t.
The clients who are most likely to be disappointed, most likely to become demanding, most likely to leave during market volatility, and most likely to create serious professional risk are almost always signalled in the first meeting. The ones who want guarantees. The ones who are dismissive or transactional. The ones who’ve cycled through multiple advisers and blame each one. The ones whose expectations no honest person could meet.
I’ve made this mistake. I suspect most advisers have. The question is how long it takes you to recognise the pattern and act on it.
Excellent practice management means being deliberate about who you accept. Not every prospect is the right client. And the cost of the wrong client — in time, in stress, in reputational exposure — almost always exceeds the revenue they bring.
Mistake two: Confusing confidence with competence
Overconfidence is one of the most consistent features of financial services misconduct. Research from Stanford found that past offenders are five times more likely to engage in misconduct than the average adviser, and that approximately one-third of advisers with misconduct records are repeat offenders. (Source: Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research)
The mechanism is usually the same: an adviser who got away with something once – whether that’s a poorly assessed risk profile, a product recommendation that served their commission rather than their client, or a compliance shortcut – interprets that outcome as evidence that their judgement was sound.
It wasn’t. They were lucky. And the next time, they won’t be.
The advisers I’ve seen navigate long careers with their integrity intact share a common trait: they’re genuinely curious about where they might be wrong. They solicit challenge. They’re uncomfortable with certainty, especially their own. They know that overconfidence is not a character flaw that affects only other people.
The most dangerous version of this mistake, in my experience, is the adviser who has had a run of good market performance and begins to attribute it to their own skill. Markets reward and punish randomly enough that extended periods of apparent success can produce advisers who’ve never been tested – and who don’t know it.
Mistake three: Misreading risk
Misjudging a client’s risk tolerance can lead to a serious cascade of problems. If clients take on too much risk, they’re more likely to panic during market downturns. If they’re too conservative, they miss growth opportunities and may fail to meet long-term financial goals.
The mechanics of risk profiling are well understood. The practice is far more varied.
The failure I’ve seen most often is treating risk tolerance as a static measurement rather than a dynamic reality. A client who expressed a high risk tolerance in 2021, when markets were rising and the question felt theoretical, is a very different person in 2025 when their portfolio has dropped materially and the headlines are catastrophic. Their stated tolerance was never tested. Their real tolerance is being discovered for the first time.
Good advisers build the stress-testing conversation into the initial engagement. They ask clients not how they’d feel about a 20% loss in theory, but what they’d actually do. They revisit risk annually, not just as a compliance requirement, but as a genuine conversation about whether the portfolio still reflects where the client actually is.
And when they get this wrong — when a client panics in a way that reveals a misalignment between their assessed risk and their actual behaviour — they treat it as information. Not as evidence of client irrationality, but as evidence of an assessment that needed to go deeper.
Mistake four: Treating communication as optional
According to a CapIntel survey, 61% of investors left their advisers due to breaches of trust, while only 54% exited due to poor portfolio performance. Performance, in other words, matters less than the relationship. And the relationship is sustained, more than anything else, by communication.
The advisers who lose clients during market downturns are rarely the ones whose portfolios performed worst. They’re the ones whose clients felt alone – who heard nothing from their adviser when markets were falling, who had to chase for updates, who felt like their concerns weren’t being acknowledged.
The advisers who retain clients through volatility are the ones who reached out before the client called. Who named what was happening, explained it clearly, and reminded clients what their plan was built for. Who treated difficult market conditions not as a problem to manage but as the moment their advisory relationship was most clearly demonstrated.
Communication during calm periods is hygiene. Communication during difficulty is value. Advisers who fail to distinguish between these two never fully understand why they lose clients.
Mistake five: Building a business on the wrong foundations
The most fundamental mistake I’ve seen — the one that underpins many of the others — is building an advice practice around product revenue rather than genuine client outcomes.
It’s a model that creates structural misalignment between what the adviser earns and what the client needs. The adviser who earns a commission when a product is sold has an incentive — conscious or not — to see products as the solution. The client whose adviser has no stake in the product they recommend benefits from something rare in this industry: genuinely unconflicted counsel.
This isn’t a moral judgement about commission-based advisers. Many are excellent people trying to do good work inside a system that makes it harder than it should be. But the system matters. Commission-based models create inherent conflicts. When advisers earn more by selling certain products, their recommendations inevitably skew towards those products. That skew may be unconscious. It’s still there.
The advisers I’ve seen build the most sustainable, reputable, genuinely client-centred practices have made a deliberate choice to align their business model with their professional obligations. Not because it was easy, but because they recognised that the alternative — optimising for their own revenue while serving their clients’ interests — is a contradiction that eventually catches up with everyone who tries to maintain it.
A final thought
The mistakes I’ve described here are avoidable. Not easily – many of them require a willingness to forego short-term revenue, to have uncomfortable conversations, to apply to your own practice the rigour you’d demand of a client’s financial plan. But avoidable.
The profession we’re trying to build – one built on genuine independence, genuine fiduciary commitment, and genuine long-term thinking – requires advisers, or who we call financial life managers, who are honest about where they’ve gone wrong and determined to do better. That work starts here.
Sam Instone is CEO of AES International, the only CEFEX-certified fiduciary firm across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.
Capital at risk. Any examples used are for illustrative purposes only, and you may get less back than the figures shown. Any financial promotions are intended for information purposes only and do not constitute an offer to invest or provide personal financial advice or tax advice. We do not take any responsibility for third-party websites and content linked to from this channel. Issued on behalf of AES Middle East Insurance Broker LLC, registered with the Ministry of the Economy, licence 571368, commercial registration 75162, regulated by the UAE Central Bank, licence no. 189. This material is intended for Retail Clients within the UAE.
