Feeling a sense of empathy with clients is key to success

One key skill required by final-round judges for the SCMP/IFPHK Financial Planner Awards 2009 was the ability to think like a client. Not just any client, of course, but specifically like a middle-aged divorced mother of one with job security concerns, little disposable income and a patchy record of personal investments.

This was the hypothetical, yet representative, central character in the case study set for the three finalists and, therefore, the person whose viewpoint each judge had to assume in order to assess the style and respective merits of the different presentations.

'I tried to look for human elements in the plan and the extent to which the financial planner appreciated the client's situation,' said Alan Tsang Hing-lun, director and chief executive of AMTD. 'In particular, I was not looking for the technical textbook approach, but for evidence that the [contestants] took on board the difficulties and challenges faced by the client in everyday life and her discomfort and limited experience in making financial decisions.'

Emphasising that the ability to appreciate different outlooks and individual client priorities was the basis of sound financial advice, Tsang said that all three candidates had put a good case in terms of tone and manner. 'I was impressed and pleased by the overall effort,' he said.

Michael Huddart, Manulife's chief executive in Hong Kong, was similarly clear about his own objectives as one of the judging panel. One could more or less take for granted, he indicated, that the initial written submissions would be of a high standard and cover most of the main issues. What he wanted to see, though, in the oral presentations was a sense of empathy with the customer. This meant taking full account of the pressures and constraints that existed, and proposing solutions that were workable and acceptable.

It was also important to avoid lapsing into industry jargon and ensure that answers addressed actual concerns. Investors needed options and information, not general reassurances or replies that only led into new layers of complexity.

'You need a good Q&A session to test this,' Huddart said. 'In this case, for example, you can't forget about the brother's advice or what would happen if the ex-husband died without any life insurance. You want the reasoning to be sensible and take off marks if they miss risks. In general, though, the finalists showed they were empathetic and their advice was appropriate.'