Feature Articles Volatility tests more than your clients’ portfolios

These are informed investors who are forming views, testing assumptions and arriving at conversations with more information than ever before, and yet 68% still say they'd prefer an adviser's guidance even if they could access the same investment opportunities and implementation capabilities used by their adviser.

As information becomes easier to obtain and investment implementation more accessible, the enduring value of advice appears to lie in the ability to interpret complexity through the lens of an individual client's circumstances.

The reasons clients leave an adviser reinforce that view.

Every client sees the same headline differently

After changes in personal circumstances (45%), poor investment performance was the most common single reason for switching advisers, cited by 32%. No surprise there. But look at what follows. Poor communication or service accounted for 26%, another 18% felt their adviser leaned too heavily on generic strategies, and a further 18% said their adviser didn't support their broader goals. Group the service and personalisation reasons together and they explain why 44% switch advisers, almost exactly level with the 45% who left because their own circumstances changed.

That result deserves attention because personalisation is often discussed in the context of portfolio construction, even though clients are more likely to experience it through the quality and relevance of communication. A highly tailored portfolio can still sit within a relationship that feels generic if conversations rarely extend beyond performance, asset allocation and market conditions, while a well-timed discussion that connects current events with retirement timing, family commitments, business interests or estate planning can make the personal nature of the advice immediately visible. 

Periods of volatility bring this distinction into sharper focus because a market disruption gives many clients the same broad concern, while still leaving each of them with a different personal question. A retiree drawing an income stream, a business owner approaching a liquidity event and a family preparing for intergenerational wealth transfer may all be watching the same geopolitical development, although its significance will depend on the outcomes each client is trying to protect and the trade-offs already built into the financial plan.

It's why the support clients ask for during volatility is less about news than it looks. Asked to pick their three most valued forms of support, 55% chose a clear explanation of what's happening and why it matters to them, 47% wanted a review confirming they were still on track, and 30% wanted more frequent updates. The common thread isn't a hunger for another market summary. It's the need to know whether the event has moved their own position.

When markets fall, relevance matters most

Our research suggests two findings should shape how you respond. First, speed signals intent. Half of those surveyed heard from their adviser within 24 hours of a significant event and rated their communication satisfaction at 6.4 out of seven. Wait 48 hours and it slipped to 5.7. Early contact demonstrates that the adviser is monitoring what matters to the client, rather than waiting for concern to prompt a response.

Second, channel matters less than you'd expect. A dedicated meeting scored 6.2, a phone call the same, an email 6.1. The medium barely moves the number. What counts is whether the message feels timely, considered, and genuinely aimed at the person reading it. 
The opportunity for advice firms is therefore broader than improving the market update or increasing communication frequency. It involves using the information already known about clients to make each interaction more meaningful, including the goals currently being funded, the risks that matter most, the decisions approaching on the horizon. Without that context, even technically sound commentary can feel detached from the reason the client sought advice in the first place.

Technology can reveal where attention is needed

Technology gives investors greater access to analysis and increasingly sophisticated decision-support tools. Half of the high-net-worth investors surveyed had used AI for general financial education, 46% had used it to compare investment strategies and 35% had used it to sense-check advice from their adviser. Even so, 86% agreed that the human adviser-client relationship would remain important in an AI-enabled future, while 61% believed advisers should be using AI to serve them better.

Those figures point towards a model in which technology strengthens the adviser's capacity to recognise and respond to individual needs, rather than simply producing more content at greater speed. Portfolio monitoring, reporting and analysis can help advisers identify who is exposed, who may be concerned and where a proactive conversation is warranted, but the quality of that conversation will still depend on how well the adviser understands the client's wider financial life. 

That will become increasingly important as information becomes abundant and the ability to make it personally meaningful becomes one of the clearest expressions of adviser value.

The clients most at risk may say nothing

The high-net-worth clients most at risk of leaving may not be the ones who call frequently or openly express concern. They may be the clients who continue receiving competent advice while quietly concluding that the relationship no longer feels relevant to their lives. Market volatility creates a rare opportunity to address that risk because it gives advisers a reason to demonstrate how closely they understand the people behind the portfolios, with specificity, and at the precise moment it matters.

For more information download a copy of The New Value of Advice research below.

Source for all data:  The value of advice research conducted by Praemium and CoreData from 29 May to 22 June 2026 among 139 Australian high-net-worth investors who work with financial advisers.