Rethinking legacy accounts

[Shepherds D]

Realized recently that a good number of our legacy accounts are still sitting in fee based advisory platforms, but with little to no active management or planning contact and not by neglect, but because client engagement tapered off or their circumstances changed and this brings up the uncomfortable but necessary conversation around reverse churning. These accounts aren't being traded actively, and no new planning work has been done in some time, yet they're still generating advisory fees and one would say technically compliant? maybe but philosophically aligned with the fiduciary standard we all try to uphold? probably not
So here's my question, what's your process when you come across these deadweight accounts? do you automatically transition them to a brokerage model, attempt to re-engage with planning? or do you view these as natural friction in a growing book?
And secondly, how do you bring this up with clients without making it sound like you're justifying past inaction or pushing for new business?

 

[AssetArchitect]

I've noticed the same thing with legacy advisory accounts that have become a bit quiet, not because they're being neglected, but just due to a gradual decline in engagement. When I see that, I usually reach out to reconnect and assess whether their planning still aligns with their current situation. If it doesn't, I'll recommend transitioning to a brokerage setup or something that might be a better fit. When I talk about it, I frame it in terms of ensuring the fee structure makes sense for them right now, this way, it stays straightforward and focused on the client's needs.

 

[brent_cfp]

Realized recently that a good number of our legacy accounts are still sitting in fee based advisory platforms, but with little to no active management or planning contact and not by neglect, but because client engagement tapered off or their circumstances changed and this brings up the uncomfortable but necessary conversation around reverse churning. These accounts aren't being traded actively, and no new planning work has been done in some time, yet they're still generating advisory fees and one would say technically compliant? maybe but philosophically aligned with the fiduciary standard we all try to uphold? probably not
So here's my question, what's your process when you come across these deadweight accounts? do you automatically transition them to a brokerage model, attempt to re-engage with planning? or do you view these as natural friction in a growing book?
And secondly, how do you bring this up with clients without making it sound like you're justifying past inaction or pushing for new business?

I got the same approach as @AssetArchitect when I come across these deadweight accounts. My first step is always to re-engage the client. It's not about pushing for new business, but understanding if their needs have shifted and if the advisory model still makes sense for them. I focus on their best interest to initiate and encourage the discussion. It's about ensuring they're in the most suitable and cost-effective arrangement for their current situation.