Advisers dread this conversation more than any other part of the move. It is almost always easier than the version they rehearsed.
What you can communicate, when, and through what channel depends on your agreements and any applicable protocol. Get that settled with a lawyer before the first call, not after.
Everything below assumes you have done that.
The instinct is to explain the decision — the technology, the independence, the frustration. The client does not care about any of that yet.
What they want to know is what happens to them. Answer that first, in the first thirty seconds, and the rest of the conversation gets easier.
Who manages the account now. What paperwork they will receive. Whether anything about the strategy changes. What their fee will be. Whether they have to do anything.
Uncertainty is what makes people anxious, not change.
Clients are not deciding whether to trust the new firm. They are deciding whether they still trust you. They mostly already have.
It reads as justification and it plants a doubt that was not there. It also raises an obvious question: if it was that bad, why were you there.
A neutral, brief reason is more credible than a detailed grievance.
Some clients will remain with the old firm. Usually it is proximity, inertia, or a relationship with someone else there.
Pushing hard on those is where advisers do damage — to the relationship and occasionally to themselves legally. Make the offer once, clearly, and let it go.
How many clients say a version of "I wondered when you would do this."
People notice when someone is constrained by their environment. The move frequently confirms something the client already suspected, and the conversation is a relief rather than a shock.
Read next
The performance history gap →