Grant didn’t set out to build a big firm.
Twenty-three years ago, his plan was simple.
Help people who need it.
Be the financial expert his clients could rely on.
That’s all he focused on.
Success, reputation and returns would follow.
He never used words like “scale” or “enterprise value.”
He sought a solid job, not a big firm with lots of people and issues.
And after twenty-three years, despite plenty of ups and downs, he’s achieved exactly that.
Good lifestyle. Good reputation. Good clients who consistently provide high-quality referrals.
But something is changing.
Grant’s son Luke, who has worked with Grant for nearly five years, is stepping up.
Luke has different ambitions.
He is trying to align his plans with the reality ahead for their $1.35m firm.
He hopes to build on Grant’s legacy and lead a growing firm that is attractive not only to ideal clients but also to team members who can build and extend their reputations.
Luke believes he has no option.
He has to grow the business beyond his Dad while making enough money to pay back the family estate so inheritance issues with his three siblings are addressed. He also has to fund future growth so he and his team can be properly rewarded, while building reserves for investments in tech stacks and for inevitable ‘unexpecteds’.
There’s a problem.
CLIENTS FOR LIFE
Can Grant’s ‘clients for life’ principle survive the required growth?
Compared to when Grant started the firm with his ‘clients for life’ proposition, everything about the firm has progressed.
Grant’s experience, knowledge, networks, and team capability in 2026 are quite different from what he offered in 2003.
The regulatory environment has progressed, some might say regressed, but the cost of delivering compliant advice today is unrecognisable.
The variety and options of financial products and services have transformed, as has the internet’s impact on how the firm operates.
The only constant is Grant’s original client promise – “if there is anything I can do, don’t hesitate to make contact”, i.e. I’m here for you – you’re a client for life.
The needs of Grant’s clients have not progressed.
He’s been so effective at simplifying or managing their financial complexities that their financial lives are largely sorted out.
They still value access to him to keep doing what he’s always done.
Unfortunately, the gap between what Grant’s firm can now deliver and what the firm’s past clients need has become a chasm.
Worse still is the growing ‘fee elephant’ – i.e. the difference between the fees Grant is now successfully charging new clients and the fees past clients are paying.
It’s like the original fans of a band that used to play the local pub.
Great music, great experience, intimate access, cheap entry.
But the band got better, and better, and better.
New audiences arrived, willing to pay more and more and more.
The venues had to change.
But the original fans will always anchor their experience on their early access.
There’s no disloyalty from the band.
They have just been successful, vindicating their early fans.
Grant and Luke both understand the growing fee issue for existing clients.
They don’t understand how to position and tell their existing clients about it.
Grant told me, “They’ll feel betrayed. I promised them personal service. I promised them access. Now I’m saying, here’s my new fee, take it or leave it. That’s just not me. ”
I understand Grant’s fear.
I also understand what he’s missing.
Everything has progressed except Grant’s “clients for life” promise.
Some readers aren’t building a firm like Luke, they may feel more like Grant.
Unfortunately, the “clients for life” problem doesn’t care about future ambitions because its cause was seeded in past success.
Whether an adviser’s intent is Grant’s, a rewarding career with satisfied clients and a well-earned reputation, or Luke’s, a growing firm that thrives beyond the founder, the issue is identical.
Old promises made under old propositions consume time exponentially, constrain capability, reinforce pricing to remain in comfort zones without respect for growing worth, and make future opportunities harder to grasp due to constant lack of time.
The clients-for-life principle anchored to legacy clients at legacy fees isn’t protecting a lifestyle.
It is doing the exact opposite.
Guaranteeing the erosion of advisers’ lifestyles as they spend their business lives ensuring their clients’ lifestyles are cared for.
Honouring old promises comes at a cost that doesn’t show on a firm’s profit and loss.
These firms will never have the time as they try to achieve the impossible, retaining clients for life.
Unmanaged for too long, the needed fee increases are significant – these are not simple 10%-15% increases. They are significant enough that it is inevitable that Grant and Luke will lose some clients.
Before any new fees are delivered, Grant and Luke need to decide which clients they might sell, which they will transition, which they’ll refer elsewhere, and which relationships have simply run their course.
My experience with Principal Advice teams is that most of the firm’s clients will be retained because they value the access, the capability, their financial paths, and the confidence from the relationship.
“Clients for life” sounds noble.
But when it means anchoring an advice team to promises made in a different era of ability and fees, it eventually sucks all the available time, capacity and confidence out of any advice team.
The question isn’t how to keep every client.
It’s which advice relationships represent the future and which ones represent the past, and the courage to respect the common good of all stakeholders.
Jim