The Presentation (of the Facts) step consists of two parts:

 1. Reviewing the most recently updated Asset-Map Report with the household, and
 
 2. Using the Target-Map Summary Page to reveal the mathematical funding gaps and collectively prioritize those areas that need attention.
 
 Focusing on those top 1, 2, or 3 prioritized areas will help keep execution simple. 

What to bring:

  • Print the copies of the Worksheet for everyone (Find as PDF attachment at bottom of article)
  • Each participant should bring their own printed copies of a Comprehensive Report
  • Advanced digital workshops: for presenting without pen/paper, remember to book a room with internet & large screen and have everyone bring a laptop, tablet, or iPad

Be Prepared:

  • Login to Asset-Map and watch this video on Presenting
  • Create & customize Target-Maps for one of your Sample clients
  • Review some completed Target-Maps

Workshop 4A Presentation: Prioritize Needs/Gaps

Using a sample based upon a real client, each participant should take a turn walking through the Asset-Map to get corrections and clarifications. Remember to ask revealing questions where you perceive issues or challenges. After commenting and presenting clear structural issues revealed in the Asset-Map (“Here’s what I see”), briefly address the gaps in the Target-Maps Summary page. Before getting into the details, determine the client’s highest priority gaps (or multiple if the Target-Map was cloned to create alternate scenarios) that need to be resolved with urgency (i.e. today). Participants should then ask some questions and objections (to test the FPs competence), as though they are the client or the client advocate (family member, trusted advisor). The goal is to get buy-in from the client/prospect that the gaps are legitimate and there is an expressed desire to remedy apparent gaps BEFORE talking about product strategies. The intent is to expose the truth about their financial condition and then agree that a resolution is obvious (i.e. “we need more insurance, capital, higher growth, more guarantees, less accounts, trusts, LTC funding, etc.”).

Shared Feedback from Group: 

  1. What was great about each person’s delivery?
  2. What could be added or removed to make the presentation more succinct/cleaner/effective?
  3. Was anything confusing to you about the delivery?

Workshop 4B: Role-Playing

Choose from the following:

  • Meeting Environment: Physical (Paper) Digital, Remote, Hybrid
  • Participants: Family, Referral, Review, Business Owners, CPA, Professionals, etc.
  • Roles: Client, Prospect, Financial Professional, Manager, Mentor, etc.

Split into groups of 2-4, decide on the meeting environment, participants of the meeting and who is playing each role (did client already prioritize the needs). Then, begin by handing out copies of the comprehensive report (Asset-Map, Target-Map Summary, Individual Target-Map Reports), and ensuring each party has a pen (if in-person). The FP will then walk through the comprehensive report with the client. Review the Asset-Map for accuracy and clarifying any open questions, gain agreement on gaps, priorities, and commitment for solving them (but not for specific solutions or products).

For Example:

“It’s clear from your Asset-Map that consolidation would help alleviate the amount of clutter, costs and redundancy. On a scale of 1-5 (5 is most important), what priority would you give me toward improving your situation?”

“It would seem from looking at your Target-Map Summary you are significantly underfunded in the event of a Loss of Life and LTC event and partly underfunded for Retirement. Which of these would you like to prioritize for addressing in the short-term?”

Switch roles and repeat the above.

Shared Feedback from Group: 

  1. What was great about each person’s delivery?
  2. What could be added or removed to make the presentation more succinct/cleaner/effective?
  3. Did the Target-Maps have any errors (e.g., wrong dates or ages for cash flows)
  4. Was the ordering of Target-Maps effective?
  5. Would a clone with an alternate scenario have provided more clarity/legitimacy?
Did this answer your question?