- Start with the client needs each investment option serves, rather than a target number of options.
- Consider the work behind a choice as well as the choice itself.
- Separate decisions about your future proposition from decisions affecting existing clients.
Start with the purpose of the review
An investment proposition can become difficult to explain without any single decision having been unreasonable. A new service, an acquisition or a different client need may each add another option. The useful question is whether those options still form a coherent whole. Simplification should make the proposition easier to understand, oversee and deliver while preserving choices that serve a clear purpose.
For an advice firm, this is a business review of how investment solutions fit its service. For a discretionary manager, it may also involve the structure of its own portfolio range. The scope will differ, but both can begin with the same question: what does each part exist to do?
Map what the firm actually uses
Create one working inventory of the solutions currently available and used. Include legacy arrangements and exceptions, rather than restricting the exercise to the preferred list. Record the intended client need, who owns the relationship or decision, how the option is overseen and the work required to support it.
Keep the first version proportionate. A smaller firm may need a shared table and a discussion between its owner, advisers and operations lead. The aim is a usable picture, not a large research project. Where information is missing, show the gap instead of filling it with an assumption.
Distinguish useful choice from duplication
Two options that look similar may serve different client needs. Equally, different names can conceal substantial overlap. Ask what would be lost if an option were no longer available for new business, and what additional work is needed to retain it. Consider communications, training, oversight, administration and the handling of exceptions alongside the investment proposition itself.
This is not a reason to impose a single solution. It is a way to make the reasons for choice explicit. If the team cannot explain those reasons consistently, investigate the uncertainty before deciding what should change.
Test the map against a real decision
Consider a hypothetical advice firm that has added several outsourced investment solutions over time. Its review finds that two serve distinct needs, one remains important for existing clients and another has no clearly documented role. That finding is a prompt for further assessment, not an instruction to move client assets.
The team could first clarify the future purpose of each option, agree who can approve exceptions and improve the explanation advisers use. Any subsequent client-level changes would need their own assessment and appropriate process. Keeping these decisions separate makes the business review more useful and avoids treating simplification as an automatic migration exercise.
Turn the review into a manageable plan
Finish with a short set of decisions, open questions and named owners. Some improvements may concern documentation or responsibilities. Others may require deeper commercial, operational or specialist work. Distinguish what can be agreed now from what depends on evidence, consultation or further review.
A useful outcome is an investment proposition the team can explain, with a clear role for each component and a practical way to manage exceptions. Begin by asking one colleague to describe the range and another to describe how it works in practice. The differences between those explanations can provide a productive starting point.
This article provides general business considerations for professional firms. It is not personal financial advice or an assessment of your firm’s regulatory compliance.
Investment Consulting
Review your investment proposition, strengthen governance and build clear, proportionate processes for research, oversight and adviser communication.
Explore this service