Retirement advice is having a moment. Between rising client expectations, looming tax changes, and the FCA’s sharper focus on Consumer Duty outcomes, suitability in retirement planning has never felt more scrutinised – or more complex.
Recent research from FT Adviser found that suitability reports remain a “constant choke” for advisers. The same message echoed across Professional Paraplanner’s autumn surveys: advisers are spending more time on report drafting than on client conversations, with pressure peaking around pension and decumulation cases.
The problem isn’t that advisers don’t know what to say. It’s that the how– how to evidence rationale, balance flexibility and sustainability, and present recommendations in plain English – still feels too heavy for most workflows.
1. The Pension Pressure Cooker
Fidelity Adviser Solutions’ latest adviser research showed a marked rise in retirement income reviews this quarter, as clients seek to “get ahead” of potential Budget changes. That’s pushed paraplanning and suitability teams into overdrive – especially around drawdown sustainability and sequencing risk analysis.
Clients are understandably cautious. Many have seen markets recover since 2022 but remain wary of volatility and tax drag. Advisers, meanwhile, are wrestling with how to present complex pension logic clearly, without burying clients in detail or triggering rework at QA.
The bottleneck isn’t just technical. It’s structural. Most retirement advice still relies on sequential handovers between adviser, paraplanner, and reviewer – a process that was designed for regulatory safety but now hinders it. Every pass adds delay and dilutes accountability.
At We Complement, our suitability consultants are seeing that the fastest, cleanest outcomes come when logic is evidenced as it’s built. That means integrating fact-finding, objective validation, and product alignment before the report even hits a QA queue.
2. From Paraplanning to Proof
The industry’s language is shifting. “Suitability Consultant” isn’t just a new title – it’s a reflection of the role’s evolution. Where a paraplanner traditionally constructed reports based on adviser input, a suitability consultant now tests and evidences the advice itself.
That proactive discipline changes everything:
- Errors are caught early, not patched later.
- Logic is consistent across advisers and files.
- QA becomes confirmation, not reconstruction.
As the FCA continues to assess Consumer Duty implementation, firms that can show advice integrity at the point of creation – not just in hindsight – are finding themselves on stronger ground.
It’s the difference between checking quality and proving suitability.
3. A Shift in Adviser Behaviour
The same Professional Paraplanner data found that over half of advisers are now “actively revisiting” retirement frameworks in anticipation of policy or tax change. But there’s a second driver: advisers want reassurance that their advice process is robust enough to withstand audit, even when circumstances shift.
In our own consulting work, we’re seeing three practical changes that make a difference:
- Clearer objectives mapping. Linking every recommendation to a measurable client goal, not a generic outcome.
- Version-controlled reasoning. Keeping an auditable record of every change – who made it, and why.
- Embedded suitability scoring. Using structured frameworks (like our Suitability Matrix Score) to turn subjective “good” into objective evidence.
These are not just compliance niceties; they’re governance tools that de-risk advice teams and build confidence with both clients and regulators.
4. The Retirement Advice Balancing Act
Retirement advice has always been the ultimate test of judgement – balancing today’s client emotions with tomorrow’s unknowns. But under Consumer Duty, that judgement must now be demonstrably reasonable. The regulator isn’t just asking whether a client’s plan makes sense; it’s asking whether the processthat produced it is reliable, repeatable, and aligned to FCA rules.
That means suitability isn’t a one-off test; it’s a continuous discipline.
- COBS 9.2.1R requires firms to ensure suitability of recommendations.
- SYSC 3.2.6R demands that systems themselves prevent foreseeable harm.
- Consumer Duty Outcome 1 obliges firms to prove good client outcomes, not just intend them.
In practice, those three lines converge in a simple principle: advice should stand up the first time.
5. Looking Ahead
With the Autumn Budget approaching and client nerves heightened, advisers face another surge in last-minute pension reviews. The firms that thrive through it will be the ones that treat suitability as a live process, not an end-stage hurdle.
We Complement’s view is that the answer lies in Advice Integrity – embedding evidence and alignment from the first client conversation through to final file. When suitability becomes part of the advice build, retirement planning stops being a choke point and starts being a confidence point.
Final Thought
Retirement advice will always be complex. But complexity doesn’t have to mean opacity. The firms that simplify the path – for advisers, for clients, and for auditors – are the ones that will win both trust and time.
If this resonates with what you’re seeing in your own firm, we’d love to hear from you. No pitch. Just a conversation between people who care about getting advice right.
