Unsuitable advice leading to client redress, reimbursements, and lost ongoing revenue

$12M-$45M annually across portfolio (based on £34.2m Charles Stanley 2014 remediation scaled to modern multi-segment advisory books; US state regulators cite tens of millions in annual suitability-based restitution orders; lost ongoing advisory fees from client attrition post-breach equal 15-25% of affected AUM annually) • $34.2M+ per firm (historical: Charles Stanley 2014); ongoing annual exposure estimated $2M–$50M+ per firm depending on AUM and client count; typical suitability remediation programs involve restitution, regulatory fines, and remediation costs; loss of advisory fees from affected clients; reputational damage reducing new client acquisition • $34.2M+ redress per major breach (Charles Stanley precedent); regulatory fines 10-25% of fees on advisory book; estimated 15-40% restitution across affected client base; reputational damage reducing AUM by 20-35% post-breach; legal defense costs $2M-$5M per case

Billing Admins maintain Excel spreadsheets or CRM notes tracking client risk categories, manually cross-reference advisory recommendations against documented constraints, create ad-hoc reports for redress calculations, use email chains to communicate suitability concerns, rely on memory of client conversations • Manual Excel spreadsheets for risk profiling; reliance on client self-reported risk tolerance without corroboration; incomplete or informal documentation of suitability rationale; handwritten notes or email chains as evidence; memory-based client constraint tracking; no centralized audit trail of assessment vs. recommendation • Manual spreadsheets tracking client risk profiles; ad-hoc notes in CRM; reliance on client self-assessment without verification; memory-based suitability checks; email chains as audit trail; inconsistent documentation across advisors