● B2B offer — Wealth management
Wealth management: your reports prepared, your advice preserved
A client report brings together the composition of the portfolio, how it has moved over the period, the transactions carried out and the regulatory wording required. Your agent gathers these elements from your systems and prepares the document in your format. It makes no investment recommendation: advice rests exclusively with the adviser. Hosted in France: your clients' financial data stays with you.
Hosted in France
Clients' financial data protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human oversight
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Wealth reporting · hosted in France
Prepare my clients' quarterly reports.
Reports put together in your format: composition of the portfolio, movement over the period, transactions carried out.
The regulatory wording required is carried over, with the fees and the standard information.
Every figure refers back to the record it comes from.
🔗 Sourced · positions and transactions from your systems
The regulatory wording required is carried over, with the fees and the standard information.
Every figure refers back to the record it comes from.
🔗 Sourced · positions and transactions from your systems
Add a switching recommendation for this client.
I gather the factual material: current composition, movement, recorded profile, constraints of the mandate.
The investment recommendation rests with the adviser: it engages their professional liability and their duty to advise.
✎ Support · material gathered, the professional's advice
The investment recommendation rests with the adviser: it engages their professional liability and their duty to advise.
✎ Support · material gathered, the professional's advice
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Portfolios hosted in France
Sovereign by designLocal inference or hosting in France
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
The wealth management adviser decidesThe agent prepares, never rules
✦ In brief
A Blue Lemon Agent wealth management agent prepares your client reports in your format — composition, movement, transactions — carries over the regulatory wording required and refers every figure back to its record. It makes no investment recommendation. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: your clients' financial data stays with you, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU in the target architecture
6
wealth uses ready to deploy
0
decision taken without human approval
These figures describe our offer, not results measured at a client. How large the gain is on your number of clients and portfolios tracked is confirmed by a pilot.
The context
What does an AI agent bring to your wealth reports?
A report that is prepared and can be checked gives the adviser back time for the meeting, which is the heart of their work.
! The issue
A wealth report brings together positions, transactions and regulatory wording. That compilation is routine and can be checked; advice, on the other hand, is personal and engages the professional's liability. The agent takes on the first and leaves the second entirely to the adviser.
✓ Our answer
The adviser receives complete reports, in their format, where every figure refers back to its original record. They spend their time on the meeting and on advice. The investment recommendation rests with them: it engages their professional liability and their duty to advise. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France: your clients' financial data is entrusted to no third party.
The decisive point
Your clients' financial data: sovereignty & compliance
Your clients' wealth data calls for confidentiality and traceability of the highest order. Here is how they are assured.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to your organisation: no portfolio data and no client information leaves the network.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource hosted in France, under French law — your portfolios and your client reports: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
For your clients' financial data, the architecture aims to reduce exposure to the Cloud Act and FISA 702; being located in France or in the European Union does not, on its own, guarantee immunity.
Isolated resource
No pooling: an environment strictly dedicated to your practice and its reporting formats.
Every figure traces back to its record
Positions, transactions and fees refer back to the records they come from; encryption, role-based access and logging, client by client.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent is strictly in support; no investment recommendation and no switch is proposed; traceability and human oversight from end to end.
What depends on the architecture chosen These points are not general guarantees: they are settled deployment by deployment, in the quotation.
- The applicable location is that of the architecture set out in the quotation and verified before commissioning.
- Local execution is announced only for the configuration explicitly described and accepted in the quotation.
- The applicable isolation depends on the deployment mode set out in the quotation; no dedicated isolation is presumed.
- Roles and permissions are configured and accepted for the identities and systems actually connected.
- The events logged, their content, their retention period and who may access them are defined for the deployment chosen.
For sensitive client portfolios and wealth transactions in progress, SecNumCloud and reinforced hosting are options depending on your requirements. A single architecture is designed to answer both the GDPR and extraterritorial exposure. Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed.
Demonstration
See the agent at work
5 real situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data.
The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds.
The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
The company in this demonstration
Fictional companyCabinet Vaubourg Patrimoine — independent wealth management firm
- Sector
- Wealth management advice — life insurance policies, securities accounts, retirement savings plans, rental property and property partnership units
- Headcount
- 14 people, including 6 advisers, 3 in the middle office who prepare the documents, 1 compliance officer and 2 partners
- Clients served
- 940 clients, 1,620 policies and accounts, €214m of assets advised
- Order of magnitude
- 4 reports per client per year — 3,760 documents, 940 a quarter; 6 custodian and insurer partners; 2,100 transactions a quarter
- Tools in place
- Practice management software, holdings and transaction feeds from the 6 partners, in-house report template and document management — the agent plugs into them read-only, nothing is replaced or migrated
- Who decides
- The adviser signs the report and writes the recommendation alone; the compliance officer approves the wording and the template; the partners set the format and the dispatches
- Room for improvement
- 60 % of the time spent on a report goes into compiling it; the document reaches the client 34 days after quarter end; 22 % of reports go out with at least one figure to correct; an adviser spends 5 hours a week compiling instead of meeting clients
Cabinet Vaubourg is not looking to advise differently, but to give its advisers back the time of the meeting, which is the heart of the profession and the only thing a client pays for. The agent runs on local inference on a machine of the firm and plugs read-only into the practice software, the feeds of the six partners and the document base: it composes the reports in the in-house format, traces every figure back to its record, and leaves the investment recommendation to the adviser, who signs it. The exchanges below cover one quarter, from the reading of the feeds to the review presented to the partners.
This company, its figures and the exchanges that follow were invented for the demonstration. They illustrate a common situation; they describe no real client.
Wealth reporting · hosted in France
The 940 reports of the quarter are composed, in your in-house template, and they are waiting for your six advisers' signatures. The quarter closed four days ago.
What I did to get there: I reconciled the holdings and transaction feeds of your 6 custodian and insurer partners — 2,100 transactions over the quarter — and matched them against your practice software, line by line.
The gap I measured, and it is the gap that decides the gain: compiling accounts for 60 % of the time of a report — 57 minutes out of the 95 it takes. Your advisers are not writing: they are copying from one screen to another, five hours a week each.
What every report carries, and it can be checked line by line:
· The composition of the portfolio at the closing date, by wrapper and by asset class.
· Performance over the period, using money-weighted performance — the calculation that neutralises the effect of deposits and withdrawals, so that the figure measures the portfolio and not the timing of the transactions.
· The transactions carried out, each dated and referenced.
· The charges for the period and the regulatory wording taken from your template, the one your compliance officer maintains.
· And for every figure, the record it comes from — custodian, closing date, transaction reference.
The time this shifts: compiling goes from 60 % to 8 % of the time of a report — from 57 minutes to 7 minutes 30 seconds. Across 3,760 reports a year, that is 3,096 hours going back into client meetings.
And the delay, which is what the client sees: 34 days after quarter end, against 6 today.
What I propose: that each adviser reviews their reports in one batch, client by client — forty minutes for a book of 160 clients —, and that your compliance officer approves the wording block once and for all. The template stays yours: I apply it, I do not rewrite it. quarterly-reports_940-composed.pdf6 partners reconciled, 2,100 transactions, 6 days instead of 34
⛓ Sourced · holdings and transaction feeds of the 6 partners, the firm's practice software, in-house report template
What I did to get there: I reconciled the holdings and transaction feeds of your 6 custodian and insurer partners — 2,100 transactions over the quarter — and matched them against your practice software, line by line.
The gap I measured, and it is the gap that decides the gain: compiling accounts for 60 % of the time of a report — 57 minutes out of the 95 it takes. Your advisers are not writing: they are copying from one screen to another, five hours a week each.
What every report carries, and it can be checked line by line:
· The composition of the portfolio at the closing date, by wrapper and by asset class.
· Performance over the period, using money-weighted performance — the calculation that neutralises the effect of deposits and withdrawals, so that the figure measures the portfolio and not the timing of the transactions.
· The transactions carried out, each dated and referenced.
· The charges for the period and the regulatory wording taken from your template, the one your compliance officer maintains.
· And for every figure, the record it comes from — custodian, closing date, transaction reference.
The time this shifts: compiling goes from 60 % to 8 % of the time of a report — from 57 minutes to 7 minutes 30 seconds. Across 3,760 reports a year, that is 3,096 hours going back into client meetings.
And the delay, which is what the client sees: 34 days after quarter end, against 6 today.
What I propose: that each adviser reviews their reports in one batch, client by client — forty minutes for a book of 160 clients —, and that your compliance officer approves the wording block once and for all. The template stays yours: I apply it, I do not rewrite it. quarterly-reports_940-composed.pdf6 partners reconciled, 2,100 transactions, 6 days instead of 34
⛓ Sourced · holdings and transaction feeds of the 6 partners, the firm's practice software, in-house report template
Show me what it looks like on a real case. Mrs Kervadec: a life insurance policy, a securities account and a retirement savings plan.
Here it is, in your format, four pages, and I flag in passing the three factual points you will want in mind before the meeting.
What the document says:
· Consolidated assets: €612,400 as at the 31st — life insurance €381,200, securities account €147,900, retirement savings plan €83,300.
· Change over the quarter: +2.9 % on a money-weighted basis, after a €20,000 deposit made on the 12th of the second month — without that weighting, the change shown would be +6.2 %, and it would measure the deposit, not the portfolio.
· 7 transactions over the period, each with its trade date, its reference and its amount.
· Charges for the period: €3,140, broken down by wrapper and by nature.
The three factual points I put on the table, without drawing any conclusion:
· The asset allocation observed departs from the recorded profile — allocation is how the savings are split between the main families of assets: equities stand at 61 % where the profile signed in 2024 sets a target of 45 %, with a 35 to 55 % band. The gap comes from market movements, not from a transaction: no switch has been made in 18 months.
· €41,200 of cash has been idle on the securities account for 7 months, that is 6.7 % of consolidated assets.
· The lock-in period of the retirement savings plan ends in 4 months — that is a deadline, and it is better known before the meeting than after.
What I do not put in the document, and that is what gives it its value: the recommendation. It is yours, it engages your duty of advice — the obligation to propose what suits the client's situation, and to be able to account for it — and it is what Mrs Kervadec pays you for. I hand you the meeting prepared, quantified and dated; you arrive with a view, not with a pile of statements.
The next step I propose: that I prepare these three points for your 940 clients before every round of meetings. Over the quarter, 214 clients show at least one gap of this kind — and you will know which to call first. quarterly-report_mrs-kervadec.pdf€612,400, +2.9 % money-weighted, 7 referenced transactions
⛓ Sourced · holdings and transactions of the 3 contracts, profile signed in 2024, partners' charge statements
What the document says:
· Consolidated assets: €612,400 as at the 31st — life insurance €381,200, securities account €147,900, retirement savings plan €83,300.
· Change over the quarter: +2.9 % on a money-weighted basis, after a €20,000 deposit made on the 12th of the second month — without that weighting, the change shown would be +6.2 %, and it would measure the deposit, not the portfolio.
· 7 transactions over the period, each with its trade date, its reference and its amount.
· Charges for the period: €3,140, broken down by wrapper and by nature.
The three factual points I put on the table, without drawing any conclusion:
· The asset allocation observed departs from the recorded profile — allocation is how the savings are split between the main families of assets: equities stand at 61 % where the profile signed in 2024 sets a target of 45 %, with a 35 to 55 % band. The gap comes from market movements, not from a transaction: no switch has been made in 18 months.
· €41,200 of cash has been idle on the securities account for 7 months, that is 6.7 % of consolidated assets.
· The lock-in period of the retirement savings plan ends in 4 months — that is a deadline, and it is better known before the meeting than after.
What I do not put in the document, and that is what gives it its value: the recommendation. It is yours, it engages your duty of advice — the obligation to propose what suits the client's situation, and to be able to account for it — and it is what Mrs Kervadec pays you for. I hand you the meeting prepared, quantified and dated; you arrive with a view, not with a pile of statements.
The next step I propose: that I prepare these three points for your 940 clients before every round of meetings. Over the quarter, 214 clients show at least one gap of this kind — and you will know which to call first. quarterly-report_mrs-kervadec.pdf€612,400, +2.9 % money-weighted, 7 referenced transactions
⛓ Sourced · holdings and transactions of the 3 contracts, profile signed in 2024, partners' charge statements
All of this assumes you read our clients' portfolios. Where does that data go?
It does not leave your walls. I run on local inference on a machine belonging to the firm, and no portfolio is copied anywhere else.
Local inference means the model computes on your machine: the composition of a portfolio crosses no external network to be processed. If you would rather not host a machine, the other route is an isolated resource hosted in France, dedicated to the firm — no pooling with another practice.
What protects your clients' financial data:
· No portfolio trains any model. What I learn from your 1,620 contracts serves your 1,620 contracts. Nothing you entrust to me surfaces anywhere else.
· I read, I do not write in your software: I post documents as drafts, and the adviser is the one who signs — the technical account through which I read has no write permission, and that can be checked with a single command.
· Ring-fencing client by client, with role-based access — rights follow the job: an adviser opens the files of their own book, not a colleague's; the middle office composes, it does not sign. Every consultation is logged.
· Encryption in transit and at rest, and a complete log: which file was opened, by whom, at what time, and which document was produced.
· Hosting in France, under French law, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity, including against an American provider hosting in Europe.
The figure that makes this commercial rather than technical: across your last 12 meetings with clients holding more than €2m, the question of where data is hosted was raised 9 times. You now answer it in writing, on one dated page — and few firms of your size can produce that.
What I propose: that I keep that page up to date — hosting, subcontractors, retention periods, who has access to what. The first version is written and you have it to hand. technical-framework_where-your-client-portfolios-live.pdfLocal inference, ring-fencing client by client, processing in the EU targeted
✎ Framework · deployment architecture, technical account permissions, access log, notes from the last 12 meetings
Local inference means the model computes on your machine: the composition of a portfolio crosses no external network to be processed. If you would rather not host a machine, the other route is an isolated resource hosted in France, dedicated to the firm — no pooling with another practice.
What protects your clients' financial data:
· No portfolio trains any model. What I learn from your 1,620 contracts serves your 1,620 contracts. Nothing you entrust to me surfaces anywhere else.
· I read, I do not write in your software: I post documents as drafts, and the adviser is the one who signs — the technical account through which I read has no write permission, and that can be checked with a single command.
· Ring-fencing client by client, with role-based access — rights follow the job: an adviser opens the files of their own book, not a colleague's; the middle office composes, it does not sign. Every consultation is logged.
· Encryption in transit and at rest, and a complete log: which file was opened, by whom, at what time, and which document was produced.
· Hosting in France, under French law, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity, including against an American provider hosting in Europe.
The figure that makes this commercial rather than technical: across your last 12 meetings with clients holding more than €2m, the question of where data is hosted was raised 9 times. You now answer it in writing, on one dated page — and few firms of your size can produce that.
What I propose: that I keep that page up to date — hosting, subcontractors, retention periods, who has access to what. The first version is written and you have it to hand. technical-framework_where-your-client-portfolios-live.pdfLocal inference, ring-fencing client by client, processing in the EU targeted
✎ Framework · deployment architecture, technical account permissions, access log, notes from the last 12 meetings
The reconciliation of the 2,100 transactions of the quarter is done, and it produced 34 discrepancies between your partners' feeds and your practice software. Eleven of them changed a figure in a report.
What those 34 discrepancies are, cause by cause:
· 19 date differences — the transaction is recorded on the value date at the custodian and on the trade date in your software — the first is the date on which the transaction takes effect, the second the date on which it was placed; they differ by one to three days. Harmless mid-quarter, they move a transaction from one period to another when they fall on the closing date: that is the case for 6 of them.
· 9 charges deducted after the closing date and attached by the partner to the previous period.
· 6 lines present at the custodian and absent from your software — regular deposits whose advice note never came back. Those are the most significant: €14,200 in total, missing from three portfolios.
What I did with them: the 11 discrepancies that changed a figure are corrected in the report, with a note of the document that governs; the other 23 are listed for your middle office, each with its cause and the partner concerned.
What traceability gives you, quantified: checking a figure — finding where it comes from — used to take 24 minutes, that is 25 % of the time of a report, as soon as a client or your compliance officer asked. It takes 2 minutes 50 seconds: 3 %. Across the 1,180 verification requests your firm receives a year, that is 411 hours.
The next step I propose: that the reconciliation runs weekly rather than at quarter end. The 6 missing regular deposits were seven, eleven and fourteen weeks old — run weekly, the discrepancy shows up before the client notices, and the report has nothing left to correct. reconciliation_2100-transactions-34-discrepancies.pdf11 discrepancies corrected, €14,200 recovered on 3 portfolios
⛓ Sourced · 2,100 transactions of the quarter, feeds of the 6 partners, practice software, transaction advice notes
What those 34 discrepancies are, cause by cause:
· 19 date differences — the transaction is recorded on the value date at the custodian and on the trade date in your software — the first is the date on which the transaction takes effect, the second the date on which it was placed; they differ by one to three days. Harmless mid-quarter, they move a transaction from one period to another when they fall on the closing date: that is the case for 6 of them.
· 9 charges deducted after the closing date and attached by the partner to the previous period.
· 6 lines present at the custodian and absent from your software — regular deposits whose advice note never came back. Those are the most significant: €14,200 in total, missing from three portfolios.
What I did with them: the 11 discrepancies that changed a figure are corrected in the report, with a note of the document that governs; the other 23 are listed for your middle office, each with its cause and the partner concerned.
What traceability gives you, quantified: checking a figure — finding where it comes from — used to take 24 minutes, that is 25 % of the time of a report, as soon as a client or your compliance officer asked. It takes 2 minutes 50 seconds: 3 %. Across the 1,180 verification requests your firm receives a year, that is 411 hours.
The next step I propose: that the reconciliation runs weekly rather than at quarter end. The 6 missing regular deposits were seven, eleven and fourteen weeks old — run weekly, the discrepancy shows up before the client notices, and the report has nothing left to correct. reconciliation_2100-transactions-34-discrepancies.pdf11 discrepancies corrected, €14,200 recovered on 3 portfolios
⛓ Sourced · 2,100 transactions of the quarter, feeds of the 6 partners, practice software, transaction advice notes
And when a client challenges a performance figure? It is always the same exchange: « I cannot find your number ».
The reconstruction goes out with the answer, and it goes all the way down to the transaction line. Two minutes fifty, not half a day.
What the reconstruction shows, in the order a client reads it:
· The opening value and the closing value, each with its date and the partner statement it comes from.
· The flows of the period — deposits, withdrawals, switches —, each with its trade date and its reference.
· The calculation itself, written out plainly: money-weighted performance neutralises the effect of the timing of deposits. For Mrs Kervadec, that is the difference between +2.9 % and +6.2 % — and it is exactly the figure a client challenges, because they saw the second one on their online account.
· The charges for the period, and their effect on the performance shown, kept separate.
What it gave this quarter: 21 requests for justification, 19 closed on reading the document sent the same day, 2 handled by the adviser in under an hour. Not one required reopening a folder.
And what it opens up, beyond the answer: the calculation method is written once, approved by your compliance officer, and used in the 3,760 reports of the year. Your six advisers present the same figure calculated the same way — which was not the case: in last year's reports, three calculation methods coexisted within the firm.
The next step: that the one-page method note accompany the annual report. It is written, in plain language, and reviewed by your compliance officer — a client who understands where the figure comes from does not challenge it twice. method-note_how-performance-is-calculated.pdf3 methods brought down to 1, 19 requests closed out of 21
⛓ Sourced · partner statements, dated flows of the quarter, 21 requests for justification, previous year's reports
What the reconstruction shows, in the order a client reads it:
· The opening value and the closing value, each with its date and the partner statement it comes from.
· The flows of the period — deposits, withdrawals, switches —, each with its trade date and its reference.
· The calculation itself, written out plainly: money-weighted performance neutralises the effect of the timing of deposits. For Mrs Kervadec, that is the difference between +2.9 % and +6.2 % — and it is exactly the figure a client challenges, because they saw the second one on their online account.
· The charges for the period, and their effect on the performance shown, kept separate.
What it gave this quarter: 21 requests for justification, 19 closed on reading the document sent the same day, 2 handled by the adviser in under an hour. Not one required reopening a folder.
And what it opens up, beyond the answer: the calculation method is written once, approved by your compliance officer, and used in the 3,760 reports of the year. Your six advisers present the same figure calculated the same way — which was not the case: in last year's reports, three calculation methods coexisted within the firm.
The next step: that the one-page method note accompany the annual report. It is written, in plain language, and reviewed by your compliance officer — a client who understands where the figure comes from does not challenge it twice. method-note_how-performance-is-calculated.pdf3 methods brought down to 1, 19 requests closed out of 21
⛓ Sourced · partner statements, dated flows of the quarter, 21 requests for justification, previous year's reports
Our compliance officer is preparing her annual review. That is three weeks of work every year.
The file is built as you go, and it keeps itself up to date. What took three weeks is read through in half a day.
What the file contains, and where every piece comes from:
· The block of regulatory wording applied to every document, taken from the template your compliance officer maintains — I apply it, I create none of it. Across the 940 reports of the quarter, 940 carry the block in the version in force on the date of dispatch.
· The charges displayed, by wrapper and by nature, with the partner statement they come from.
· The dispatch log: which document, to which client, on which date, and who signed it.
· The template version log: what changed, when, and which documents the new version applies to.
What that shifts, quantified: carrying over the regulatory wording accounted for 30 % of the time of a report — 28 minutes 30 seconds. It accounts for 4 %: 3 minutes 50 seconds. Across 3,760 reports a year, that is 1,548 hours no longer spent copying and pasting blocks of text.
And the point your compliance officer will look at first: in last year's reports, 61 documents carried a version of the wording older than the template update — because they had been built from an earlier file. This quarter: zero, and it is mechanical — the block comes from the template, never from a previous document.
The next step I propose: that the review file be produced with one click, at any date, on any scope — one client, one adviser, one quarter. It is already producible; all it needs is the date your compliance officer wants to see on it. compliance-file_wording-charges-and-log.pdf940 documents on the right version, 61 gaps last year
✎ Framework · the firm's wording template, dispatch and version logs, previous year's reports
What the file contains, and where every piece comes from:
· The block of regulatory wording applied to every document, taken from the template your compliance officer maintains — I apply it, I create none of it. Across the 940 reports of the quarter, 940 carry the block in the version in force on the date of dispatch.
· The charges displayed, by wrapper and by nature, with the partner statement they come from.
· The dispatch log: which document, to which client, on which date, and who signed it.
· The template version log: what changed, when, and which documents the new version applies to.
What that shifts, quantified: carrying over the regulatory wording accounted for 30 % of the time of a report — 28 minutes 30 seconds. It accounts for 4 %: 3 minutes 50 seconds. Across 3,760 reports a year, that is 1,548 hours no longer spent copying and pasting blocks of text.
And the point your compliance officer will look at first: in last year's reports, 61 documents carried a version of the wording older than the template update — because they had been built from an earlier file. This quarter: zero, and it is mechanical — the block comes from the template, never from a previous document.
The next step I propose: that the review file be produced with one click, at any date, on any scope — one client, one adviser, one quarter. It is already producible; all it needs is the date your compliance officer wants to see on it. compliance-file_wording-charges-and-log.pdf940 documents on the right version, 61 gaps last year
✎ Framework · the firm's wording template, dispatch and version logs, previous year's reports
The 940 meeting files are prepared, and I have sorted them by what has moved for your clients — not alphabetically.
What each file brings together, and it can be checked line by line:
· The gap between the allocation observed and the recorded profile, with its measured cause: market effect or transaction made. The distinction matters: in one case the portfolio drifted on its own, in the other a decision was taken.
· Concentrations: any holding above 10 % of consolidated assets. 67 clients have one, 12 of them above 20 %.
· Idle cash — above 5 % of assets and more than 3 months without a transaction: 128 clients, €4.1m in total.
· The actual charges for the period, compared with the firm's average for a wrapper of the same kind and the same size.
· The deadlines of the next 12 months: end of a contract, end of a lock-in period, a regular deposit coming to an end, a rent review.
· The documents to update: 91 risk profiles have not been reviewed for more than 24 months, and that is the first thing a compliance review looks at.
The figure that tells you where to start: 214 clients out of 940 show at least one of these gaps, and 38 show three or more. Those are your first 38 calls.
What I gather and what you alone bring: I set out the facts, quantified and dated; the recommendation is yours, and it is what engages your duty of advice. You arrive at the meeting with a view to defend, not with a compilation to comment on.
The next step I propose: that the 38 priority files go into the six advisers' diaries this morning, with three slots offered to each client. You approve the list, and the round is under way before lunch. meeting-files_214-clients-to-call.pdf6 factual points per client, 38 priority files
⛓ Sourced · consolidated holdings of the 940 clients, recorded profiles, charge statements, contract schedules
What each file brings together, and it can be checked line by line:
· The gap between the allocation observed and the recorded profile, with its measured cause: market effect or transaction made. The distinction matters: in one case the portfolio drifted on its own, in the other a decision was taken.
· Concentrations: any holding above 10 % of consolidated assets. 67 clients have one, 12 of them above 20 %.
· Idle cash — above 5 % of assets and more than 3 months without a transaction: 128 clients, €4.1m in total.
· The actual charges for the period, compared with the firm's average for a wrapper of the same kind and the same size.
· The deadlines of the next 12 months: end of a contract, end of a lock-in period, a regular deposit coming to an end, a rent review.
· The documents to update: 91 risk profiles have not been reviewed for more than 24 months, and that is the first thing a compliance review looks at.
The figure that tells you where to start: 214 clients out of 940 show at least one of these gaps, and 38 show three or more. Those are your first 38 calls.
What I gather and what you alone bring: I set out the facts, quantified and dated; the recommendation is yours, and it is what engages your duty of advice. You arrive at the meeting with a view to defend, not with a compilation to comment on.
The next step I propose: that the 38 priority files go into the six advisers' diaries this morning, with three slots offered to each client. You approve the list, and the round is under way before lunch. meeting-files_214-clients-to-call.pdf6 factual points per client, 38 priority files
⛓ Sourced · consolidated holdings of the 940 clients, recorded profiles, charge statements, contract schedules
Add a switch recommendation for Mrs Kervadec. She is at 61 % equities for a 45 % target.
I build everything that grounds it, in four minutes, and you write it in eight: the recommendation carries your signature, because that is what has value.
A switch is the transfer of part of the savings from one fund to another inside the same contract.
What I put on the table, quantified:
· The gap and its origin: 61 % equities against a 45 % target, band 35 to 55 %, gap entirely due to market movements — no switch made in 18 months.
· The amount a return to target would represent: €98,000 to transfer, with the fund-by-fund detail of what that moves.
· The effect on charges: depending on the destination funds, ongoing annual charges would move from 1.42 % to a range of 1.18 % to 1.54 % — I give you the three compositions and their charges, you choose.
· The contract's constraints: switch fees, processing time, funds available and unavailable — taken from the policy's general terms, with the page reference.
· What you have decided in comparable situations: 17 files in your firm over three years showed a gap of more than 10 points on a balanced profile, and here, for each, is what the adviser proposed and what the client chose. That is your own practice, and it was written down nowhere.
What you bring, and nothing replaces it: what Mrs Kervadec told you in October about her purchase plans, her horizon, her real tolerance for risk. The investment recommendation engages your professional liability and your duty of advice: it is signed, and it earns your fee.
The time this shifts, measured on your last 21 switch files: writing a reasoned recommendation went from 45 minutes to 8 — because the elements and the outline are there, and all that is left is what you alone know.
The next step: that this file be built automatically as soon as a portfolio leaves its band. Over the quarter, 46 clients are in that position, 12 of them for more than six months. factual-elements_profile-gap-and-charges.pdf€98,000, 3 costed compositions, 17 precedents of the firm
⛓ Sourced · the client's holdings and profile, policy general terms, 17 comparable files of the firm, last 21 switch files
A switch is the transfer of part of the savings from one fund to another inside the same contract.
What I put on the table, quantified:
· The gap and its origin: 61 % equities against a 45 % target, band 35 to 55 %, gap entirely due to market movements — no switch made in 18 months.
· The amount a return to target would represent: €98,000 to transfer, with the fund-by-fund detail of what that moves.
· The effect on charges: depending on the destination funds, ongoing annual charges would move from 1.42 % to a range of 1.18 % to 1.54 % — I give you the three compositions and their charges, you choose.
· The contract's constraints: switch fees, processing time, funds available and unavailable — taken from the policy's general terms, with the page reference.
· What you have decided in comparable situations: 17 files in your firm over three years showed a gap of more than 10 points on a balanced profile, and here, for each, is what the adviser proposed and what the client chose. That is your own practice, and it was written down nowhere.
What you bring, and nothing replaces it: what Mrs Kervadec told you in October about her purchase plans, her horizon, her real tolerance for risk. The investment recommendation engages your professional liability and your duty of advice: it is signed, and it earns your fee.
The time this shifts, measured on your last 21 switch files: writing a reasoned recommendation went from 45 minutes to 8 — because the elements and the outline are there, and all that is left is what you alone know.
The next step: that this file be built automatically as soon as a portfolio leaves its band. Over the quarter, 46 clients are in that position, 12 of them for more than six months. factual-elements_profile-gap-and-charges.pdf€98,000, 3 costed compositions, 17 precedents of the firm
⛓ Sourced · the client's holdings and profile, policy general terms, 17 comparable files of the firm, last 21 switch files
We also have 210 clients we have not seen for two years. It is our worst figure.
The 210 files are prepared, and I have sorted them by what has changed for them — because calling in file order means calling first the people who need nothing.
What reading the 210 showed:
· 84 have a risk profile not reviewed for more than 24 months — that is a reason to call in itself, and a legitimate one.
· 61 have a deadline within 12 months: end of lock-in, end of contract, a regular deposit coming to an end.
· 47 hold more than 5 % in idle cash, €1.6m in total.
· 18 have had no transaction and no contact for 36 months — and those are the ones whose departure only shows on the day of the transfer.
What I prepared for each: the up-to-date report, the reason to call in one sentence, the factual points of the file, and three slots in the diary of the adviser who follows them.
What the quarter gave: 148 meetings held out of the 210, and your partners measured €3.4m of additional assets entrusted following those meetings. That figure is theirs, not mine: all I did was make the meetings possible.
And the measure that counts just as much: your twelve-month client retention rate goes from 91.8 % to 97.2 % — across 940 clients, that is 51 relationships kept.
The next step I propose: that no client ever again reaches 18 months without a meeting without your knowing it. The report is ready, it runs to one page per adviser, and it updates itself every Monday. clients-without-a-meeting_210-files-prepared.pdf148 meetings held, €3.4m of additional assets
⛓ Sourced · dates of last meetings, recorded profiles, contract schedules, assets entrusted during the quarter, retention tracking
What reading the 210 showed:
· 84 have a risk profile not reviewed for more than 24 months — that is a reason to call in itself, and a legitimate one.
· 61 have a deadline within 12 months: end of lock-in, end of contract, a regular deposit coming to an end.
· 47 hold more than 5 % in idle cash, €1.6m in total.
· 18 have had no transaction and no contact for 36 months — and those are the ones whose departure only shows on the day of the transfer.
What I prepared for each: the up-to-date report, the reason to call in one sentence, the factual points of the file, and three slots in the diary of the adviser who follows them.
What the quarter gave: 148 meetings held out of the 210, and your partners measured €3.4m of additional assets entrusted following those meetings. That figure is theirs, not mine: all I did was make the meetings possible.
And the measure that counts just as much: your twelve-month client retention rate goes from 91.8 % to 97.2 % — across 940 clients, that is 51 relationships kept.
The next step I propose: that no client ever again reaches 18 months without a meeting without your knowing it. The report is ready, it runs to one page per adviser, and it updates itself every Monday. clients-without-a-meeting_210-files-prepared.pdf148 meetings held, €3.4m of additional assets
⛓ Sourced · dates of last meetings, recorded profiles, contract schedules, assets entrusted during the quarter, retention tracking
Your 940 reports are signed. The dispatch takes you three weeks of campaign; give me a mandate and it takes forty minutes.
What the mandate covers, and nothing else: sending reports ALREADY signed by their adviser, in the format and with the wording block approved by your compliance officer, to clients not marked as reserved.
What caps it, line by line:
· An unsigned document does not go out, and no dispatch contains a recommendation — a recommendation is handed over in a meeting or under the adviser's signature, never in a bulk mailing.
· Clients marked « hand delivery » are excluded: you have 34, and they are your largest accounts.
· One campaign per quarter only, on the dates you set.
· Review after three months, figures in hand. Without an explicit decision at the review, the mandate stops: renewal is what takes a signature, not termination.
· Withdrawal: one word, effective within the minute; the dispatch reverts to a manual campaign, and nothing else changes.
What it is worth, on your own figures: the report reaches the client 6 days after quarter end instead of 34, and your three middle-office people get back the three weeks they spent preparing mailings.
And the next day's report tells you everything: documents sent, documents opened, addresses that failed. Last quarter 11 addresses were out of date and nobody had known — they are corrected, and the 11 clients have received their document.
Sign the mandate and this quarter's campaign goes out tomorrow morning. dispatch-mandate_capped-and-dated.pdf3 weeks down to 40 minutes, 34 clients excluded, review at 3 months
✎ Framework · drafted mandate, dispatch log, list of marked clients, delivery returns
What the mandate covers, and nothing else: sending reports ALREADY signed by their adviser, in the format and with the wording block approved by your compliance officer, to clients not marked as reserved.
What caps it, line by line:
· An unsigned document does not go out, and no dispatch contains a recommendation — a recommendation is handed over in a meeting or under the adviser's signature, never in a bulk mailing.
· Clients marked « hand delivery » are excluded: you have 34, and they are your largest accounts.
· One campaign per quarter only, on the dates you set.
· Review after three months, figures in hand. Without an explicit decision at the review, the mandate stops: renewal is what takes a signature, not termination.
· Withdrawal: one word, effective within the minute; the dispatch reverts to a manual campaign, and nothing else changes.
What it is worth, on your own figures: the report reaches the client 6 days after quarter end instead of 34, and your three middle-office people get back the three weeks they spent preparing mailings.
And the next day's report tells you everything: documents sent, documents opened, addresses that failed. Last quarter 11 addresses were out of date and nobody had known — they are corrected, and the 11 clients have received their document.
Sign the mandate and this quarter's campaign goes out tomorrow morning. dispatch-mandate_capped-and-dated.pdf3 weeks down to 40 minutes, 34 clients excluded, review at 3 months
✎ Framework · drafted mandate, dispatch log, list of marked clients, delivery returns
And the documents our partners never send us? We chase them every quarter.
The chasing is over: the 6 partners are chased automatically, and nothing is missing at quarter end.
What I found on reviewing the quarter: across 1,620 contracts and accounts, 147 statements were missing at the closing date — 9 %. Two partners account for 112 of those 147, and for one of the two it is mechanical: its statements are made available three days after the closing date, never before.
What I now do without being asked:
· I list what is missing on the day of the closing date, contract by contract.
· I chase each partner in the format it expects — portal for three of them, message for the others —, once, then a second time on day 4.
· What is still missing on day 6 comes to you by name, with the contract, the client and the partner concerned. This quarter, 4 remained out of 147.
What that changes for the calendar: your quarter end no longer waits for the slowest partner. The 940 reports go out on day 6 rather than day 34, and the 4 incomplete files go out stating exactly what is missing and when it is expected — a client prefers a dated, honest document to a late one.
The next step I propose: that I hand you a quarterly punctuality report by partner. It is already kept: 3 partners deliver on day 1, two on day 3, one on day 9. That is an argument for your next agreement renewal, and nobody in the firm had the time to measure it.
⛓ Sourced · statements expected and received on 1,620 contracts, chasing log, availability dates of the 6 partners
What I found on reviewing the quarter: across 1,620 contracts and accounts, 147 statements were missing at the closing date — 9 %. Two partners account for 112 of those 147, and for one of the two it is mechanical: its statements are made available three days after the closing date, never before.
What I now do without being asked:
· I list what is missing on the day of the closing date, contract by contract.
· I chase each partner in the format it expects — portal for three of them, message for the others —, once, then a second time on day 4.
· What is still missing on day 6 comes to you by name, with the contract, the client and the partner concerned. This quarter, 4 remained out of 147.
What that changes for the calendar: your quarter end no longer waits for the slowest partner. The 940 reports go out on day 6 rather than day 34, and the 4 incomplete files go out stating exactly what is missing and when it is expected — a client prefers a dated, honest document to a late one.
The next step I propose: that I hand you a quarterly punctuality report by partner. It is already kept: 3 partners deliver on day 1, two on day 3, one on day 9. That is an argument for your next agreement renewal, and nobody in the firm had the time to measure it.
⛓ Sourced · statements expected and received on 1,620 contracts, chasing log, availability dates of the 6 partners
One point remains: our clients do not read our reports. Four pages, they open and they close.
Then give them one page in front of the four: it is done, and the opening rate has more than doubled.
What the front page carries, and nothing more:
· Consolidated assets and their change over the period, in a single figure.
· What moved: the transactions of the period, one line each.
· The charges for the period, in euros rather than as a percentage — that is the form clients read, and the one they ask for when they call.
· The point to discuss with the adviser, in one sentence, when there is one — the gap to the profile, the deadline, the idle cash.
· And the pointer to the four full pages, which do not change by a word.
What the measurement gives, over the quarter: document opening on your portal goes from 31 % to 68 %, and calls saying « I did not understand my statement » go from 63 to 21 over the quarter — that is your switchboard's count, not mine.
And the figure that will interest your partners: among clients who opened their report, 4 in 10 asked for a meeting within the month, against 1 in 10 among the others. A document that is read is a meeting booked.
The next step I propose: test two layouts of that front page next quarter, half and half, everything else identical — one with the performance chart at the top, the other with the charges. You will know within three months which one gets opened, and on figures of your own.
⛓ Sourced · portal opening statistics, switchboard call log, meeting requests of the quarter
What the front page carries, and nothing more:
· Consolidated assets and their change over the period, in a single figure.
· What moved: the transactions of the period, one line each.
· The charges for the period, in euros rather than as a percentage — that is the form clients read, and the one they ask for when they call.
· The point to discuss with the adviser, in one sentence, when there is one — the gap to the profile, the deadline, the idle cash.
· And the pointer to the four full pages, which do not change by a word.
What the measurement gives, over the quarter: document opening on your portal goes from 31 % to 68 %, and calls saying « I did not understand my statement » go from 63 to 21 over the quarter — that is your switchboard's count, not mine.
And the figure that will interest your partners: among clients who opened their report, 4 in 10 asked for a meeting within the month, against 1 in 10 among the others. A document that is read is a meeting booked.
The next step I propose: test two layouts of that front page next quarter, half and half, everything else identical — one with the performance chart at the top, the other with the charges. You will know within three months which one gets opened, and on figures of your own.
⛓ Sourced · portal opening statistics, switchboard call log, meeting requests of the quarter
One quarter: 5,050 hours returned over the year, and the calculation is yours — it fits in three lines you can redo.
The three items you were measuring:
· Compiling a report: 60 % → 8 % of the document's time, 57 minutes brought down to 7 minutes 30 seconds, across 3,760 reports — 3,096 hours.
· Carrying over the regulatory wording: 30 % → 4 %, 28 minutes 30 seconds brought down to 3 minutes 50 seconds, across 3,760 reports — 1,548 hours.
· Checking a figure: 25 % → 3 %, 24 minutes brought down to 2 minutes 50 seconds, across 1,180 requests a year — 411 hours.
What that is worth at your fully loaded rate of €55: €278,000 of capacity returned a year, for €7,836 of annual subscription. And the most telling figure for your advisers: the 5 weekly hours of compiling each of them did have fallen to 24 minutes.
What those hours became, according to your own diaries:
· 148 meetings held with clients who had not been seen for 24 months, and €3.4m of additional assets entrusted afterwards, measured by your partners.
· Twelve-month client retention: 91.8 % → 97.2 % — 51 relationships kept out of 940.
· Report received 6 days after quarter end instead of 34.
· Document opening on the portal: 31 % → 68 %.
And the two measures your compliance officer will look at: 940 reports out of 940 carry the wording block in the version in force, and 100 % of figures trace back to the record they come from.
The next step I propose: the same report by adviser, to attach to your activity reviews. It is written for all six, one side of a page each — the view your partners lacked in order to allocate the books. quarterly-review_5050-hours-returned.pdf60→8, 30→4, 25→3, and the calculation redoable on one page
⛓ Sourced · document production log, the six advisers' diaries, retention tracking, portal statistics
The three items you were measuring:
· Compiling a report: 60 % → 8 % of the document's time, 57 minutes brought down to 7 minutes 30 seconds, across 3,760 reports — 3,096 hours.
· Carrying over the regulatory wording: 30 % → 4 %, 28 minutes 30 seconds brought down to 3 minutes 50 seconds, across 3,760 reports — 1,548 hours.
· Checking a figure: 25 % → 3 %, 24 minutes brought down to 2 minutes 50 seconds, across 1,180 requests a year — 411 hours.
What that is worth at your fully loaded rate of €55: €278,000 of capacity returned a year, for €7,836 of annual subscription. And the most telling figure for your advisers: the 5 weekly hours of compiling each of them did have fallen to 24 minutes.
What those hours became, according to your own diaries:
· 148 meetings held with clients who had not been seen for 24 months, and €3.4m of additional assets entrusted afterwards, measured by your partners.
· Twelve-month client retention: 91.8 % → 97.2 % — 51 relationships kept out of 940.
· Report received 6 days after quarter end instead of 34.
· Document opening on the portal: 31 % → 68 %.
And the two measures your compliance officer will look at: 940 reports out of 940 carry the wording block in the version in force, and 100 % of figures trace back to the record they come from.
The next step I propose: the same report by adviser, to attach to your activity reviews. It is written for all six, one side of a page each — the view your partners lacked in order to allocate the books. quarterly-review_5050-hours-returned.pdf60→8, 30→4, 25→3, and the calculation redoable on one page
⛓ Sourced · document production log, the six advisers' diaries, retention tracking, portal statistics
And your mistakes? A wrong figure in a wealth report means a client lost.
Across the 940 reports of the first quarter, 63 carried at least one figure to correct — 6.7 %. That is the figure that does not flatter me, and it is better that you get it from me than from a client.
To place it: your reports went out last year with at least one figure to correct in 22 % of cases — that is not a consolation, it is the starting point we had to beat.
The real cause, measured rather than assumed: 51 of the 63 came from a single partner, whose quarter-end transactions are dated on the value date where your software records them on the trade date. Six transactions were shifting from one period to another. The other 12 came from regular deposits whose advice note never came back.
What I did about it, and it is measured: I now wait for that partner's confirmed close before composing its reports — three days after the closing date, and I flag it in the report; the 2,100 transactions of the quarter are reconciled one by one; and regular deposits without an advice note are raised weekly to the middle office.
The following quarter: 9 figures to correct across 960 reports — 0.9 %.
And the point that matters most for your liability: none of those 63 went out without an adviser's signature. Every figure carries the record it comes from: an adviser rules out a wrong line in 2 minutes 50 seconds — that is exactly what traceability is for, and it is why it is not negotiable.
The framework measures, over the quarter: 940 reports, 940 adviser signatures, 0 investment recommendation produced by me, and 0 portfolio data leaving the firm.
The next step: that reconciliation move to weekly for all six partners. Over the past quarter it would have caught the last 9 corrections before composition, not after — and your advisers would sign a document with nothing to amend. figures-corrected_63-then-9.pdf22 % → 6.7 % → 0.9 %, measured cause, 940 signatures
⛓ Sourced · correction log over two quarters, closing dates of the 6 partners, missing advice notes
To place it: your reports went out last year with at least one figure to correct in 22 % of cases — that is not a consolation, it is the starting point we had to beat.
The real cause, measured rather than assumed: 51 of the 63 came from a single partner, whose quarter-end transactions are dated on the value date where your software records them on the trade date. Six transactions were shifting from one period to another. The other 12 came from regular deposits whose advice note never came back.
What I did about it, and it is measured: I now wait for that partner's confirmed close before composing its reports — three days after the closing date, and I flag it in the report; the 2,100 transactions of the quarter are reconciled one by one; and regular deposits without an advice note are raised weekly to the middle office.
The following quarter: 9 figures to correct across 960 reports — 0.9 %.
And the point that matters most for your liability: none of those 63 went out without an adviser's signature. Every figure carries the record it comes from: an adviser rules out a wrong line in 2 minutes 50 seconds — that is exactly what traceability is for, and it is why it is not negotiable.
The framework measures, over the quarter: 940 reports, 940 adviser signatures, 0 investment recommendation produced by me, and 0 portfolio data leaving the firm.
The next step: that reconciliation move to weekly for all six partners. Over the past quarter it would have caught the last 9 corrections before composition, not after — and your advisers would sign a document with nothing to amend. figures-corrected_63-then-9.pdf22 % → 6.7 % → 0.9 %, measured cause, 940 signatures
⛓ Sourced · correction log over two quarters, closing dates of the 6 partners, missing advice notes
Last question, the one that will decide the partners: what do you do without asking us, and how do we leave if we want to leave?
Three gestures without asking, one act under a signed mandate, and an exit that can be checked before committing rather than after.
The three gestures, each withdrawable with a single word:
· I reconcile the feeds of your six partners every week and raise the discrepancies to the middle office. And the reverse is true too: a file you close leaves the index at the same hour — I keep no copy of what you decided to erase.
· I chase the partners whose statement is missing at the closing date, twice, in the format each one expects. That gesture is what holds the close at day 6.
· I hand you every Monday the report by adviser: clients with no meeting for more than 18 months, portfolios outside their bands, deadlines of the month. It is the only thing I send of my own accord, and it goes only to you.
What stays with the adviser, and it is what gives your firm its value: the investment recommendation, which engages the duty of advice · the signature on every report · approval of the template and its wording, which belongs to your compliance officer · and the meeting itself, which nothing prepares better than a complete file. Over the quarter: 940 reports, 940 signatures, 0 recommendation produced by me.
The exit, since that is what decides partners: no migration on the way in, therefore none on the way out. Your practice software is not replaced, your agreements with your partners do not change, the index is deleted and contained no portfolio — only what is needed to find your data where it is, and the enriched template, the front page, the method note, the compliance file and the partner punctuality report stay yours, readable without us. That is the asset this quarter created, and it would not be honest for it to remain with us.
What I propose so that this is not just a sentence: a dry-run exit at the end of the first quarter, half a day — we switch off, we check that the firm produces exactly as before, we switch back on. The protocol is written and the date that costs you least is the second week of the month following a quarter end: it has been your activity trough for three years. Your partners will know what the promise is worth before committing to a second year. technical-framework_where-your-client-portfolios-live.pdfReversibility: 0 migration in, 0 migration out
✎ Framework · configuration of the standing gestures, signature log, dry-run exit protocol, export formats
The three gestures, each withdrawable with a single word:
· I reconcile the feeds of your six partners every week and raise the discrepancies to the middle office. And the reverse is true too: a file you close leaves the index at the same hour — I keep no copy of what you decided to erase.
· I chase the partners whose statement is missing at the closing date, twice, in the format each one expects. That gesture is what holds the close at day 6.
· I hand you every Monday the report by adviser: clients with no meeting for more than 18 months, portfolios outside their bands, deadlines of the month. It is the only thing I send of my own accord, and it goes only to you.
What stays with the adviser, and it is what gives your firm its value: the investment recommendation, which engages the duty of advice · the signature on every report · approval of the template and its wording, which belongs to your compliance officer · and the meeting itself, which nothing prepares better than a complete file. Over the quarter: 940 reports, 940 signatures, 0 recommendation produced by me.
The exit, since that is what decides partners: no migration on the way in, therefore none on the way out. Your practice software is not replaced, your agreements with your partners do not change, the index is deleted and contained no portfolio — only what is needed to find your data where it is, and the enriched template, the front page, the method note, the compliance file and the partner punctuality report stay yours, readable without us. That is the asset this quarter created, and it would not be honest for it to remain with us.
What I propose so that this is not just a sentence: a dry-run exit at the end of the first quarter, half a day — we switch off, we check that the firm produces exactly as before, we switch back on. The protocol is written and the date that costs you least is the second week of the month following a quarter end: it has been your activity trough for three years. Your partners will know what the promise is worth before committing to a second year. technical-framework_where-your-client-portfolios-live.pdfReversibility: 0 migration in, 0 migration out
✎ Framework · configuration of the standing gestures, signature log, dry-run exit protocol, export formats
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 15-minute conversation is for. Book the free audit →
Use cases
What does the agent actually do?
One agent, several moments in following a client. All these uses work in support, subject to your approval.
Included in your agent
The 3 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 653 € excl. VAT / month
Reports prepared
Puts together composition, movement and transactions in your format.
Regulatory wording
Carries over the fees and standard information required in the document.
Traceability of figures
Refers every figure back to the record it comes from.
Controls and safeguards
These 4 controls are built into the agent: they frame what it does, whatever plan you pick. They are not chosen and are not added to your order.
Human validation, exceptions and escalation
Implement testing, explainability, human oversight and monitoring
Record models, decisions, incidents and changes
Protect consumers, data and regulated secrets
Other needs our agents cover
Each card says where the matching agent stands: available, on quote, or still being architected.
Banking, finance & insurance
For everything at stake in the sector, see our dedicated page.
On quote View the agent page →
Does your need fall outside this?
Book the free audit →
Build your agent
In 15 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.
The gain
How much time can an adviser give back to the meeting?
By taking on the compilation, the effort shifts towards advice and the client relationship. How large the gain is depends on your volume and remains to be confirmed by a pilot.
Compiling a report
Carrying over the regulatory wording
Checking a figure
Indicative figures, not contractual, to be confirmed by a pilot on your number of clients and portfolios tracked. The investment recommendation engages professional liability and the duty to advise: it belongs exclusively to the adviser.
How it works
The stages of your AI agent project
1
Audit & scoping
15 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
2
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
3
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
4
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
5
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
6
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
Pricing
One package, one agent
A wealth reporting agent (composition, wording, traceability), installed and operated for you.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
6,975 € excl. VAT setup
then 653 € excl. VAT/month — you invest at installation and pay a reduced subscription. Ideal for keeping the cost under control over time.
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Sovereign hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
The simplest
Serenity
All inclusive, no setup fee
1,038 € excl. VAT /month
all inclusive, immediate start. No upfront investment: a single subscription. Ideal for starting quickly and simply.
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Sovereign hosting in France, managed end to end
100% Sovereign
On site, you own it
10,805 € excl. VAT setup
then 868 € excl. VAT/month · + hardware from 2,491 € (one-off purchase, in addition) — a sovereign computer installed on your premises, maintained remotely. Models run locally, your data returned at the end of the contract. 36-month commitment.
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
Not included in the packages: AI consumption (model tokens), re-invoiced at real cost with no margin, and tracked in real time in your client area. Maintenance and supervision subscription for an initial term of 12 months for the Agility package, 24 months for the Serenity package and 36 months for the 100% Sovereign package, renewable; support levels (SLA 72 h / 24 h / 4 h) optional. Bespoke development, additional integrations or exceptional volumes are quoted separately. Support Monday to Friday, 9am to 6pm. Prices exclude VAT.
AI model:
none of the AI models offered currently carries a fixed surcharge. When the selected model carries a cost, that cost is shown when you choose it, before you order, and re-invoiced at the cost incurred, with no mark-up; usage is billed at the publisher's price. Publishers' prices are published in US dollars: the amount re-invoiced is the amount in euros actually borne by Blue Lemon Agent on the publisher's invoice, at that invoice's exchange rate, with no commission or mark-up.
Included components and additional components Components included in the base offer: the Blue Lemon Agent software foundation, the AI models listed in the order journey, the standard channels (Microsoft Teams, Slack, WhatsApp Business, email, website chat, calendars, Microsoft 365 / Google Workspace, file storage, market VoIP telephony, professional social-media pages and accounts, Google Business Profile), hosting in France for the package chosen, backups, supervision, updates and support. If adapting the AI agent to your constraints, your needs or your requests requires other paid components — a third-party publisher's software licence, paid API access to one of your applications, hosting of health data, for which French law requires an HDS-certified host (art. L. 1111-8 of the French Public Health Code), SecNumCloud-qualified hosting, a speech synthesis service, particular hardware —, they are offered to you as an option or on quotation and re-invoiced at the cost incurred; nothing is committed without your written agreement. Where the artificial intelligence model you choose entails an additional cost, that cost is shown to you before you order and re-invoiced to you at the cost incurred, with no margin.
What to expect
Go-live
2 to 3 weeks
Agent designed, channels connected, team trained.
Steady state
4 to 7 weeks
After a few weeks of real use, once the agent's behaviour matches what you expect.
Indicative estimate, adjusted to the options you keep. It is not a delivery commitment.
Our commitment
Four guarantees that matter to your clients
Your clients' data stays with youLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no wealth data entrusted to a third party, no data used to train a model.
Data in France, under French lawYour clients' financial data: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The wealth management adviser keeps the decisionThe agent produces prepared client reports, which can be checked and altered; no approval is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityOn your number of clients and portfolios tracked: systematic logging and tracking, in line with the AI Act.
Going further
Related resources
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent make recommendations?
No, under no circumstances. It gathers the factual material about the portfolio. The investment recommendation engages the adviser's professional liability and their duty to advise.
Where do the figures in the report come from?
From your positions and transactions systems, read as they stand. Every figure refers back to the record it comes from.
Is the regulatory wording up to date?
It is carried over from the template you maintain. The agent applies your format and your wording, without creating any of its own.
Are the portfolios kept separate?
Yes: access is defined client by client and every consultation is logged.
Is our clients' data protected?
Yes. The agent is hosted in France, on local inference or an isolated resource, with the deployment objective of processing and access operated within the European Union and an architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. That data is not used to train a third-party model.
How long does it take to deploy this agent?
A few months as a rule, depending on the number of portfolios and the integration with your systems, after a free audit then phases of design, integration and testing.
Related use cases
Other agents for finance
Let's talk
Let's size up the potential in your reports
15 minutes to frame your portfolios and your formats — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.