This case study is drawn from multiple adviser experiences. Details have been anonymised, but the structure and outcomes are real.
The starting point: an attractive opportunity
An adviser joins a well-known advice practice operating within a large network.
They are offered a Business Support Package (BSP), described verbally as:
- help getting started,
- an investment in their future,
- and a way to “build their own client bank”.
The adviser is told:
- this is how most advisers begin,
- the support will ease early cashflow pressure,
- and that, over time, the business becomes “theirs”.
They sign the documentation.
What the documents actually provide
The written agreements state that:
- the BSP is a loan, not an investment;
- the loan is personally repayable;
- repayment is triggered if the adviser leaves or permissions are withdrawn;
- clients remain allocated to the practice, not the adviser;
- permissions to advise and earn income are discretionary;
- failure to meet certain “expectations” can result in termination.
Legally, the documents are clear.
At the time, the adviser does not focus on the exit clauses — because exit is not expected.
What the adviser understands they are doing
Based on conversations, tone, and cultural framing, the adviser believes:
- they are effectively buying into a business;
- the debt is linked to the value of the client book;
- if things don’t work out, the clients (and income) would move with them, or at least offset the debt;
- the practice and adviser are aligned long-term;
- exit, if it ever happened, would be “manageable”.
In short, they believe risk and reward are shared.
The turning point: under-performance
After a period of time, the adviser struggles to meet “expectations”.
The word targets is never used.
Instead, the adviser is told they are:
- not meeting expectations,
- not a good fit,
- or not performing at the required level.
Permissions are restricted or removed.
Income stops.
The adviser is given the choice to leave.
The consequence: debt without income
On exit:
- the adviser loses access to clients;
- the income stream ends immediately;
- the BSP loan crystallises in full;
- repayment is demanded within a defined period.
The adviser is shocked.
They ask:
- “What about the clients?”
- “What about the book I built?”
- “How can I repay without income?”
They are told:
- the contract is clear;
- the debt is personal;
- the clients remain with the practice.
What happens to the clients
The clients are reassigned internally.
In some cases:
- they are allocated to another adviser;
- in others, they form part of a “growth opportunity” for a new recruit.
From the client’s perspective:
- they experience another adviser change;
- continuity is disrupted;
- trust is eroded.
Some clients report having had multiple advisers in a short number of years.
The hidden pattern
From reviewing multiple cases, a consistent structure emerges:
- Advisers assume personal debt.
- Their ability to earn is contingent on permissions they do not control.
- If permissions are withdrawn:
- income stops,
- debt remains.
- The client relationships remain within the practice.
- The same income potential can then support another adviser transition.
The adviser bears the downside.
The system remains intact.
Why advisers don’t see this coming
This outcome is rarely anticipated because:
- the contractual risk is latent, not immediate;
- the verbal framing emphasises growth, not exit;
- the culture assumes success, not failure;
- advisers are focused on clients, not contracts.
Most advisers only fully understand the structure when they try to leave.
Is this illegal?
Not necessarily.
Each agreement is usually:
- legally enforceable,
- contractually clear,
- and individually consented to.
The issue is not legality alone.
It is whether advisers were:
- given a fair understanding of how risk is allocated,
- properly informed about exit consequences,
- and able to make a genuinely informed decision.
Why this matters
This model has consequences beyond advisers.
It affects:
- adviser wellbeing,
- recruitment practices,
- client continuity,
- and trust in the advice profession.
When advisers are treated as interchangeable, clients feel it too.
The lesson
Before entering any BSP arrangement, advisers should ask:
- Who controls the clients if I leave?
- Does the debt follow the income — or survive without it?
- What happens if I don’t meet expectations?
- Am I buying an asset — or funding working capital?
- Where does the risk really sit?
If those answers aren’t clear in writing, caution is justified.
Final reflection
This case study is not about blame.
It is about understanding how systems behave under stress, not how they are described when things are going well.
The difference matters.
Need clarity before things escalate?
If you’re:
- considering a BSP and want to understand the real exit mechanics, or
- already in a BSP and feeling trapped, pressured, or unsure what to do next,
Adviser Bridge exists to support you before matters escalate.
It’s a calm, pre-legal pathway to help advisers:
- organise the facts,
- avoid accidental admissions,
- prepare for difficult conversations,
- and regain a sense of control.
Book a free 15-minute clarity call here:
https://www.academyoflifeplanning.com/financial-planner/pathways/adviser-bridge
Sometimes the most powerful move is to pause, get clarity, and choose your next step deliberately.
Academy of Life Planning 