In a shiny world financial advisor networkeverything seemed designed to convince: elegant brochures, words like “protection”, “strategy”, “support”. But it is enough to scratch the surface to know that there is a very simple thermometer, accessible to everyone, that is capable of measuring the true nature of a bank or a network of consultants: just look at how many customer assets end up in the bank’s so-called assets. “managed savings”.
You don’t need to be an analyst. No need to read financial statements or decipher 200-page reports. This is much simpler: if the majority of a network’s assets are invested in funds, SICAVs, asset management or policy, it is almost certain that the priority is not the savers, but the commercial machine that must be fed. It’s the business model that tells the story, not the interview rhetoric.
The percentages contained in the tables periodically published by the specialized press speak clearly. In some networks, managed savings exceed half of total assets. And these aren’t technical details: they’re descriptions of how the world works. Managed is an engine that guarantees recurring commissions, stable income and high margins. It is the fuel that drives sales budgets, internal campaigns, and reward systems. The more funds placed, the greater the commission. More commission, more profit. And the more profits there are, the greater the pressure to collect them.
The story is usually told backwards: managed as the most modern, most advanced and most protective solution. And in some cases it can happen. But the point is different: Is it normal that every customer, young or old, with a thoughtful or dynamic profile, with 20 thousand euros or two million, needs the same managed solution? Does each profile really require a very expensive policy or a fund that eats into profits silently? Is it credible that the only answer to any need is simply “product”?
I lived that world firsthand for twenty-five years and have observed it as a consultant for fifteen years.
The reality is that when the share of assets allocated to management exceeds a certain level, it is no longer the customer who guides the choice: it is the structure. And in this situation consultation loses its nature placement according to orders. Cassettes always spin in the same direction. In fact, the tables circulating in this sector, which are updated monthly, clearly show how some networks have a percentage of assets invested in assets under management approaching or exceeding two-thirds of the total. A clear picture: there the product is not the solution, but destiny.
This does not mean bad-mouthing the party being managed. There are investors who need to be delegated, families who need protection, assets that need complex tools. But the real consultation starts before the product, not after. Start with analysis, not a signature sheet.
But the real point emerges by looking at the other columns, columns that are less discussed but more revealing: consultation fees. Because there it is measured not only where the income comes from, but as they arrived. In some cases, managed services are a means of charging fees, in other cases the consulting itself becomes a fee-based service. And here, what at first glance seems like a contradiction, occurs. It may even happen that the network with the lowest weight of managed products collects more fees, simply because it does not earn income by pushing funds or policies, but by selling the consultants themselves: therefore, not less commercial, but commercial in a different way.
When this happens, the model is more akin to “fee” consulting, where the client pays for the service and not the product. This is the opposite approach to the traditional “I give you funds and within the funds there is a commission” approach, and That doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It is true that, in some cases, it is more transparent. But it is precisely for this reason that it is important to understand who is offering what, and most importantly, how they are being rewarded.
It’s as if a restaurant requires you to pay a cover charge, then service, then air conditioning, then background music. All legal, for good. But when the bill arrives, you discover that most of the price is not for the food, but for the scaffolding surrounding it.
So the advice, simple but firm, is this: when an advisor talks to you about financial planning, don’t look at his catalog of funds. Look at his hands. Calmly ask how much of your assets he wants to invest and what additional fees he will charge you. Because if the only line proposed is a high-load product, and consultant fees also appear in addition to the product commission, perhaps you are faced not with a professional “who has your goals in mind”, but with an employee who must achieve his goals.
Simple indicator, two columns in one table. And suddenly everything becomes clear: who is actually doing consulting and who is just selling. In an age where personal finance has become a maze, these percentages are a flashlight. You just have to want to turn it on.
