It’s a question we often hear posed around the idea of advice firms having a Centralised Retirement Proposition (CRP): if the same client sat down with two different advisers at a firm, would they leave with the same retirement plan?

This is a topic we have been exploring in depth by surveying and interviewing a range of financial advisers, planners and outsourced specialists. The resulting guide to The CRP You Already Have is free to download here, thanks to the kind support of Brooks Macdonald.

The answer that emerged from our research is – broadly yes, but not exactly.

This quote from an outsourced paraplanning specialist sums it up perfectly for me:

“The same client going into two different offices should come out with broadly the same outcome. Imagine a crossbow target with ten rings. They should end up in the first three rings, the centre of the range.”

I like that analogy (so much so that we used crossbow target imagery throughout our report) because it recognises something important. Consistency doesn’t mean identical, and in the case of retirement planning, it’s often more about consistency of process, not outcome.

It’s not really about geography either. You can sit right next to another adviser in your firm and have your own style. Your favourite questions that get clients to open up about what’s on their minds. Your unique way of putting them at ease. Your go-to analogies about other retiring clients you’ve helped and what worked for them.

Clients don’t arrive with their needs waiting to be discovered. Advisers play a fascinating, subtle and influential role in shaping what gets discussed, what gets prioritised and what feels important.

Really good retirement advice feels to me less and less about investment strategies, portfolios and withdrawal rates (not that those aren’t vitally important), but about helping people make decisions about how they live.

Say a client arrives asking, ‘can I afford to retire?’. One adviser might help them realise that they want to retire because the commute takes them away from their family too much, but actually dropping to 4 days a week would address that. Another adviser might explore legacy planning in more depth and uncover ambitions around supporting children or grandchildren financially. Another might discover that the real issue isn’t affordability at all, but permission. The client has enough money, but struggles with the idea of spending it.

And that’s just on the client side. There’s also an inherent bias from the adviser – and it’s not a bad thing, but it does deserve recognition.  One adviser may spend longer talking about securing income; another might focus more on flexibility. One adviser might be enthusiastic about annuities and another sceptical.

The result is that the same client may arrive at a different conclusion, even when the technical planning process is broadly the same.

So how similar should retirement advice be?

Not because one adviser is right and another is wrong, but because retirement planning is inherently subjective.

As one adviser told us in interview, “If it was a science, we’d have automated it by now. Even if there is an optimal financial option, which often there isn’t, you’ve got a series of greys”. Which feels particularly relevant as AI becomes increasingly embedded in the planning process.

Interestingly, AI may make some of these differences more visible than ever before. Historically, firms could review the recommendation and suitability report. Increasingly, AI-generated meeting notes and conversation analysis allow firms to look further upstream, at the discussions that shaped those recommendations in the first place.

That doesn’t mean assessing whether advisers are saying the same things. It means understanding whether important topics are being explored consistently, whether blind spots are being surfaced, and whether clients are being given the same opportunity to consider the full range of options available to them.

No one is suggesting that every client should receive the same recommendation, invest in the same solution or withdraw income in exactly the same way. Nor that firms should try to eliminate adviser individuality. Quite the opposite. Much of the value of advice comes from the experience, judgement and personality of the adviser sitting across the table.

But neither should the outcome depend entirely on which adviser happens to answer the phone.

The implication is subtle but important.

Advice is not something that is delivered to a client. It is something that is created between an adviser and a client. The goal isn’t to create identical outcomes, it’s to ensure that every client has the opportunity to explore the same possibilities.

Throughout this project, we found ourselves talking less about Centralised Retirement Propositions and more about Consistent Retirement Playbooks.

A playbook feels more realistic. It acknowledges that retirement advice isn’t a flowchart leading every client to the same destination. It’s a framework of beliefs, processes and standards that helps ensure clients are guided through the same quality of thinking, while still allowing advisers to exercise judgement and adapt to individual circumstances.

The recommendation may differ. The conversation may differ. The client may even discover that the question they arrived with wasn’t the one they really needed answered.

And perhaps that’s exactly why advice remains a fundamentally human profession.

Julie Best, Insight Director at NextWealth

FAQ:

1: What is a Centralised Retirement Proposition (CRP)?

A Centralised Retirement Proposition (CRP) is a structured framework that helps financial advice firms deliver consistent retirement planning. Rather than forcing every adviser to give identical recommendations, a CRP aims to ensure clients experience a consistent planning process, explore similar retirement considerations, and receive advice aligned with the firm’s core beliefs and standards.

2: Should two advisers give the same retirement advice to the same client?

Not necessarily. While two advisers should follow a consistent retirement planning process, the final recommendation may differ based on the client’s priorities, values, and the adviser-client conversation. The goal is consistency in quality, due diligence, and exploration of options rather than identical outcomes.

3: Why can retirement planning recommendations vary between advisers?

Retirement planning is inherently subjective and involves more than technical calculations. Different advisers may uncover different client motivations, concerns, and goals through their conversations. Factors such as lifestyle aspirations, family priorities, legacy planning objectives, income preferences, and attitudes toward risk can all influence the final recommendation.

4: How can advice firms improve consistency in retirement planning?

Many firms improve consistency by developing retirement planning playbooks, documented processes, and centralised retirement frameworks. These tools help advisers explore key topics consistently, reduce blind spots, and ensure clients are exposed to a full range of retirement options while still allowing advisers to exercise professional judgement.

5: What role will AI play in retirement advice consistency?

AI is increasingly helping firms assess the quality and consistency of retirement planning conversations. Beyond reviewing suitability reports, AI can analyse meeting notes and client interactions to identify whether important retirement topics are being discussed, whether risks are being explored consistently, and whether clients are receiving a comprehensive planning experience. However, human judgement remains essential because retirement advice involves personal values, emotions, and life decisions that cannot be fully automated.