If you ask a banker he will tell you that c´est to better serve clients, allow them to have a look nine on their account and kick their propose new solutions.

In this case, why not ask the opinion of the client if the goal is to better serve? Personally I am more attached to the human relationship and I am wary of advice given by people from crossing.

Then why is it changing Advisor finally?

Here are the main reasons and especially the real reasons:

-Because the banks are struggling to recruit good staff and suddenly try to keep changing assignment regularly. The job is difficult. The banker has little power and there is often an interface between the desire to serve and the need for extreme profitability. The time to keep the people, the banks mutate them so that there is movement internally rather than externally.

• Because an advisor that it knows may be nicer with the client and so him reverse more easily costs.
• Because if people s´attachent their bankers too, may eventually create its own client portfolio, what the Bank does not wish to especially, this allows the time limit l´influence of your advisor including asking promotions.
• So once a product sold, we operate a bearing with responsibility is no longer on the former counsel and advisors, because it is left and start again with a new product in a new Advisor.

• And also parque Advisor must sell, sell, sell, so if it doesn't have spaces not its objectives, the Bank easily tell him goodbye! The Bank Adviser is closer to the pure commercial of the Adviser.

Finally less in l´interet of the customer in your bank. This is a secret revealed…