Rethinking the annual review: from checklist to hypothesis
Most annual reviews are shaped by the compliance clock, not by what the strategy is sensitive to. Treating the review as a hypothesis test — not a re-audit of the client — sharpens both the meeting and the file.
Most annual reviews are still shaped by the compliance clock. What gets crowded out is the actual purpose of the meeting: to test whether last year's advice is still the right advice.
Frame the review as a hypothesis test
When the plan was written, it made assumptions about income, spending, risk appetite, health, dependants, tax and time horizon. Each is testable. The review is where you test them — nothing else earns a place on the agenda.
Set your thresholds up front
Decide at plan time what movement in each input would count as meaningful. If it isn't written down where the next reviewer can find it, next year's review defaults to re-litigating the whole strategy.
What the file needs to show
Four fields: the thresholds set at plan time, the inputs tested this year, the movement against the threshold, and the decision. Everything else is preparation or supporting evidence.
See Ensombl first in Google News results for financial advice.