answer like a pro
“At retirement, I’ll keep two or three advisors… I like to put you in competition.”
Write your awesome label here.
“I keep you in competition — that way I get the best.” Here’s a response that emphasizes consistency in planning.
Having multiple advisors for retirement: a good idea or a false sense of security?
The idea of having two or three financial advisors for retirement may seem sensible to some people. The logic is simple: by putting professionals in “competition,” one believes they’ll get better recommendations, higher returns, and greater vigilance. In reality, however, this strategy carries several pitfalls that can undermine the overall coherence of the financial plan, reduce tax efficiency, and even compromise the retiree’s peace of mind.
Retirement: a time when consistency is essential
Unlike the accumulation phase, where the main goal is to grow assets, retirement is a decumulation phase. At this stage, every withdrawal, every tax, and every transfer has interconnected consequences. It therefore becomes essential to:
Redundancy and loss of efficiency
Having multiple advisors can create a false sense of diversification or security. In reality, it often leads to redundancy. For example, several advisors might invest in similar funds (Canadian equities, corporate bonds, etc.), unknowingly creating a concentrated portfolio. This reduces the effectiveness of diversification and increases overall management fees.
Furthermore, each advisor will naturally try to “prove” their value with different — sometimes contradictory — recommendations, which can confuse the client. Instead of fostering healthy competition, this approach often creates decision-making stress.
