Risk analytics built on a specific disagreement with the category: a questionnaire measures disposition, and disposition is not capacity.
The industry standard for understanding a client’s relationship with risk is a questionnaire that produces a score. Ten or twelve questions, one number, and that number becomes the artefact in the client conversation.
A questionnaire measures how someone feels about risk in a calm room, with no money moving. That is a real thing to measure. It is not the only thing that matters.
Risk tolerance is disposition — how much volatility someone is willing to accept.
Risk capacity is arithmetic — how much loss their plan can absorb before the plan stops working. It has nothing to do with feelings.
Behaviour is what they actually do when it is happening. It is the hardest to measure and the one that determines the outcome.
A single score collapses all three, because one number demonstrates well.
Tolerance, capacity, and behaviour are three different things. The category collapses them because one number is easier to sell.
riskDNA AI is a risk analytics platform that keeps those dimensions separate and uses analytical methods rather than a fixed questionnaire to profile them. The output is intended to inform a conversation and a suitability file, not to replace either.
It does not predict what a client will do. It does not predict returns, drawdowns, or market conditions, and nothing it produces should be read as a forecast.
It also does not settle the question of what a client should own. That is the adviser’s judgement and their regulatory responsibility.
Analytics of this kind end up inside client-facing material produced by advisory firms. Anything overstated about what a tool proves becomes an advertising problem for the firm using it. Being careful about the claim is a feature of the product, not a constraint on it.
Co-founder. The company site is riskdna.ai.