What stereotypes trip advisers up?

The biggest risk in mortgage advice is assuming you know what matters to a client before you have properly asked. Gender, age, job title, income or family set-up can all tempt advisers into shortcuts. A high earner may be cautious, an older borrower may prioritise flexibility, and household decision-making rarely fits neat stereotypes. Good advice starts with questions, not assumptions. The client's priorities, risk appetite and plans should drive the recommendation. Treating people as individuals is not just respectful; it is how you avoid giving technically suitable but personally wrong advice.

The starting point is not to arrive with preconceptions. Gender is one source of assumptions, but so are age, profession, wealth, accent, dress and family circumstances. None is a reliable guide to a client’s financial knowledge, confidence or priorities. The danger runs both ways. You can patronise someone you assume is inexperienced, but you can equally fail a potentially vulnerable client by assuming that wealth or professional success means they understand complex financial matters. Some very successful people know surprisingly little outside their own field, while someone who looks modest on paper may have an exceptional grasp of investments, tax or pensions. Good advice starts with questions, not assumptions: what does the client know, what matters to them and how do they make decisions? The moment you think you know what somebody wants before you have asked is when you are most likely to get it wrong.

Can we stop treating women as a separate asset class? Our job is to understand the individual not perform gender analysis. Assuming a woman is cautious or less knowledgeable is poor advice; claiming women inherently need female advisers replaces one stereotype with another.

The suggestion is patronising to clients and insulting to competent advisers. It assumes women are one homogeneous group and that professional ability is determined by gender. Where does that logic leave a non-binary adviser and whom are they supposedly qualified to serve?

The real danger is lazy profiling: assuming a doctor understands pensions, a wealthy client is financially confident, a young client wants maximum risk, a married couple shares every priority or an older client dislikes technology. Holistic advice comes from asking better questions, not demographic guesswork.

Clients should choose whichever adviser they trust. Judge advisers on suitability, education, retention, service and outcomes not gender.

A couple I met recently were very clear from the outset that they manage their affairs independently, although are very open with each other about their finances. Whereas another made it perfectly clear that the wife was the primary decision maker and co-ordinator of the family finances.

I always start by working on the basis of engage with couples jointly, but ask how they like to engage and be communicated with.

It is easy to assume the person who earns the most financially, whoever that is, is the main financial decision maker, but this is often not the case.

I used to assume minimising tax is a priority for all clients, but recently a client made it clear this was the least of their interests. Although after some discussions this was more about fear of getting caught doing something dodgy as opposed to not wanting to be tax efficient.