Young advisers on the rise, but generational turnover is measured after entry

Generational turnover in financial advisory can no longer be told only as the story of a profession that is ageing and failing to attract young people. The latest data released by the Supervisory and Register Authority for Financial Advisers, OCF, show signs of renewal. The decisive question, however, shifts to what happens after qualification: how many new professionals manage to build a stable business, with what degree of independence, and through what transfer of skills and relationships? This is where we see whether attention to young people is producing a structural change or merely a still-fragile turnover, supported above all by initial incentives.

The Register is changing, but the numbers tell different stories

In communications on the 2025 Annual Report, OCF states that the average age of registered professionals is around 51. In the section for those authorised to offer services off premises, under-30s account for 6.6%, while over-50s make up 63.6%, down from 64.8% previously. The exams also point to greater youth participation: in 2025, 1,933 of the 3,765 successful candidates were under thirty, equal to 51.4%. These are encouraging indicators, but they refer to different populations: the full register, a specific section of the Register, and those who passed the assessment test in the year. Overlaying them would make the picture simpler, but less accurate.

A successful candidate is not yet the same as a permanently active adviser; likewise, registration alone does not measure professional income or the length of a relationship with a network. To assess turnover properly, one would therefore need to follow new generations over several years, observing retention, quality of work and the progression of responsibilities. The age structure remains important because a profession based on trust must also prepare for the departure of more experienced professionals. Progress in recruitment is the starting point of this transition, while its success depends on what happens during and after mentoring.

The criticism voiced in 2021 remains a question to be tested

In 2021, an intervention by Federpromm-Uiltucs placed contractual conditions at the centre of the debate, along with the risk of answers limited to scholarships, university training and temporary financial support. That position belongs to its own context and cannot be presented again as a new statement by the organisation. It does, however, preserve a useful question: what allows a young person without an already established network of relationships to remain in the profession long enough to become competent and recognised? The cost of getting started includes study time, relationship-building, compliance obligations and the willingness to carry out activities that do not generate revenue immediately.

Initial support is valuable if it is part of a credible path. Its duration, conditions and any repayment obligations need to be understood, as does the way one moves from start-up pay to standard remuneration. Sustainability should not depend on the ability to quickly turn relatives and acquaintances into clients. This does not mean that all entry programmes follow the same model, nor that any contractual formula inevitably creates precarity. It means assessing programmes by the results and responsibilities they distribute, rather than solely by the number of professionals recruited or the sum promised in the first period.

Mentoring works when it also transfers the less visible work

The relationship with a family involves information and sensitivities that cannot be reduced to a list of the products held. An experienced adviser knows how the client deals with uncertainty, the needs of family members and the balances built up over the years. That is why the handover to a younger colleague requires shared meetings, increasing responsibilities and time to get to know one another. If the younger adviser is confined to operational tasks or digital communication while important decisions always remain elsewhere, mentoring may drag on without becoming a genuine professional succession. The client must be able to understand who is following them and why, while retaining the freedom to express their preferences.

The economic valuation of the handover also deserves transparency. Compensation for shared activities, criteria for assigning relationships, responsibilities and the conditions in the event of interruption should be clear to all parties. It is also reductive to describe the client as an asset that can be transferred automatically: contracts, the intermediary’s rules and data protection all play a role, but a person’s trust is not handed over through an agreement between professionals. An orderly transition must combine these levels and anticipate that some clients may not accept the proposed change. That is an organisational risk to be managed, not a reason to leave everything undefined.

Different models require different skills and conditions

The Register distinguishes between those authorised to offer services off premises, independent financial advisers and financial advisory firms. This structure makes it impossible to treat the profession as a single contractual experience. Even the label of independence does not in itself eliminate start-up costs or the need to find clients; it may change the content of the work and the remuneration model, while sustainability and organisation still have to be addressed. In comparing different paths, it is therefore more useful to look at the actual activities, the skills required and the concrete constraints than to attribute all the causes of the problem, or all the possible solutions, to one organisational form alone.

Training, meanwhile, must prepare people for issues that go beyond product selection. Longevity changes pension and welfare needs, generational handovers alter the interlocutors, while artificial intelligence makes information processing faster without removing the responsibility of interpreting it. A young adviser can bring valuable skills, provided they have the time and supervision to apply them. Turnover will have succeeded when it allows these abilities to become a lasting profession and offers families continuity of service. The new entries show that interest exists; the quality of the path will show how much of that interest can be retained.