Wealth Adviser Proposal Comparison Scorecard South Africa
Two wealth proposals can use similar language while differing materially in authority, custody, total fees, investment process, Shariah governance and ongoing service. A comparison scorecard forces each provider to answer the same questions before the family appoints one.
This scorecard is general information, not a recommendation or financial, tax, legal or Shariah advice. Verify current authorisation and signed terms.
1. Define the required service
State whether the family needs a financial plan, discretionary management, product advice, family governance, administration, tax coordination or another service. Score only against needs the family has actually approved.
2. Verify the contracting entity
Record the legal firm, FSP number, representatives, jurisdictions and services authorised. Verify South African status through the FSCA register. A brand or job title is not the regulated entity.
3. Map decision authority
Identify who recommends, approves, trades, holds assets and can move cash. Distinguish advice from discretionary authority. Record withdrawal controls, dual approvals and how mandates can be changed or terminated.
4. Compare custody
Record the platform, custodian and bank, the legal owner of assets and the process if the adviser or manager fails. Ask how statements are produced and whether the family can obtain information directly from the custodian.
5. Compare the investment process
Score how objectives, risk, liquidity, concentration and tax ownership lead to the proposed allocation. Require reasons for each manager and product rather than accepting a model portfolio without a family-specific mandate.
6. Compare Shariah governance
Record the methodology, Shariah board or adviser, evidence dates, breach process, purification and reporting. Score the actual process and holdings, not the prominence of a halal label.Simple scoring method
Score each category from zero to three: zero for missing evidence, one for a weak or unclear answer, two for an acceptable answer and three for a strong, verified process. Mark regulatory, custody, conflict or Shariah-evidence failures as decision gates rather than averaging them away. Add comments and document references beside every score.
Weighting should reflect the family mandate. A family needing complex estate and business coordination may give planning depth more weight; a family appointing only an investment manager may place greater weight on custody, mandate discipline and total cost. Record the weights before reviewing final proposals.
7. Calculate total cost
Show advice, discretionary, platform, custody, fund, performance, transaction and foreign-exchange fees in rand and percentages. Include VAT where applicable and explain revenue sharing or rebates.
8. Test conflicts
Record provider ownership, restricted product lists, referral payments, related-party products and incentives. Ask how conflicts are disclosed, approved and monitored.
9. Compare planning depth
Assess whether the proposal coordinates cash flow, debt, protection, retirement, estate, trusts, business interests and offshore assets where relevant. More pages do not equal better integration; look for decisions, owners and evidence.
10. Compare reporting and service
Record meeting frequency, response standards, reporting content, responsible team, escalation and continuity if the lead adviser leaves. Ask for sample reports with private data removed.
11. Test exit terms
Identify notice, transfer process, exit fees, locked products, tax effects and data handover. A proposal should remain understandable if the relationship ends.
12. Record the decision
Use a consistent score, document material weaknesses and note any non-negotiable failure. Retain proposals, disclosures, verification and the approval record.
Official starting points
Practical outcome: the family should be able to compare each proposal on the same evidence: authority, custody, process, Shariah controls, fees, conflicts, service and exit.
